"So… in my last piece I showed that US economic strength was a function of domestic demand."
You lost me at line one.
Suggested perhaps, certainly didn't show.
I'm sorry to lose you Omnium... especially as you didn't get to the one weird trick.
The problem with this "trick" is that if the problem in your economy is excessive consumption and insufficient investment then a policy that gives rise to capital gains on non-economic assets such as housing simply aggravates the problem by encouraging yet more consumption.
So, such a policy might well make sense for Germany which has had excessive saving for a long time but it makes no sense whatsoever for either the UK or the US. What we both need is a gentle deflation of our housing bubbles which encourages people to save in other ways rather than relying upon the inflation of their major asset, thus increasing the capital available for investment in production rather than consumption.
We have excess consumption in this country and have had for nearly 30 years now, hence our continuous trade deficit. The last thing we want to do is increase it further by inflating the housing market which already has major secondary effects in reducing job mobility and the creation of hubs with sufficient skills to encourage rapid growth. We need the opposite and if that puts even further pressure on countries dependent upon external demand, like Germany, to increase domestic demand, we just might be doing them a favour.
We don’t have excess consumption. We have insufficient production.
So we need to invest more to increase production to match our consumption. But you really can't spend the same money twice. You either spend it on imports that have been produced elsewhere or you invest it creating future production. We need a lot more of the latter and less of the former, at least in the short term.
You don't need to invest to increase production. You get your foot off businesses' throats and they increase production for you.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
i seem to remember you disagreeing very strongly with people on here - @gardenwalker and others - at the beginning of this war who were arguing that Ukraine couldn't win and should accept some kind of peace deal.
so are you now saying that they were right and you were wrong?
Er, I believe it was me - after my first visit to Ukraine in late spring 2023 - who began to point out that they simply couldn’t win due to lack of men. This was emphatically reinforced by my visit in summer 2024. By then I was advocating for a deal
I received vitriolic scorn for it. With the warmongers constantly claiming Ukraine was “about to reach the Sea of Azov” when this was palpable nonsense
It’s a pity @Sean_F is one of these people. The whole geopolitical tragedy of Ukraine has somewhat unhinged him. I hope he regains his sanity
PB is becoming intolerably dumb and @Sean_F is clever
I'm a historian. I know how dangerous it is to throw people to the wolves, in the hope that they'll eat you last.
There is no deal to be done. What Trump wants is his own version of Molotov/Ribbentrop.
Get a grip. Putin is not going to invade America
No, but he will make a great deal of trouble for us, and our allies. And, does he need to invade, when he owns the US government, anyway?
This is about as insane as when, during Ukraine’s great counteroffensive, you claimed they were mere kilometres from the Sea of Azov and on the cusp of a great victory
That was bilge: so is this
Can you provide a source when I said they were mere kilometres from the Sea of Azov?
Your belief in Putin's goodwill towards us is what one would expect from Jeremy Corbyn.
Again this is atypically dumb of you
Putin is a clear and present danger to Europe now that America is retreating. My personal belief is that Europeans should pool resources and create a continent-wide independent nuclear deterrent (tactical and strategic). The UK can lead this
Indeed I have thought this for some time - it was always unwise of us to be SO reliant on the USA (in multiple ways)
My argument is that much of this makes sense IF YOU ARE AMERICAN. A retreat into transactional isolationism. The Americans rightly perceive that wealthy Western Europe can and should shift for itself, militarily
This pivot has been happening for some time. The Yanks warned us - Obama told us “the Pacific is the USA’s focus and future”
Now Trump has come along and made all this very quickly obvious in the ham fisted way of a narcissistic, sociopathic New York realty mogul
I’m not sure what peace might have been on the table back then, but if we’d had a deal at that stage 50,000 Ukrainians might now still be alive.
I think you were one of a minority suggesting Ukraine should take whatever deal they could (there were peace talks at the time) however unpalatable, because they wouldn't win.
And maybe you were right. Maybe the world would now be better off, maybe a lot of people wouldn't have died, maybe Trump wouldn't have won the election.
It actually overestimates the USA’s strength, and certainly Russia’s.
Let’s say we get to the point where the UK, France, Scandinavia, maybe Germany, have ramped up defence spending, what happens when the US needs help, and its former allies say “Go fuck yourself.”
Trump believes the US is strong enough never to need friends, it can just bully other nations with no real consequences.
As you say, that's overestimating its strength. Quite grossly so. The US has wielded such enormous influence in the past 80 years because it was the centre of a web of co-operation encompassing the Anglosphere, Europe and chunks of Asia.
An isolated US that has turned friends into enemies will be much diminished.
No, the opposite argument applies. The USA has realised it is no longer willing - or able - to play global policeman. Once it was wealthy and powerful enough to shoulder this burden - yes it did it selfishly, but sometimes altruistically, too
Cf Britain abolishing slavery. We were wealthy and powerful enough to do this, even at some cost to ourselves
Now America has decided: fuck this for a game of soldiers. China is its equal - superior in some ways, inferior in others, but certainly an equal (more than the USSR ever was)
America is therefore retreating to a much more transactional isolationist position - doing only that which expressly benefits USA Inc (opinions on what this is will be divided)
The outraged whining and crying (if you’re German) at this decision is quite a ridiculous spectacle, especially as so much of it comes from lefties who until 3 days ago liked nothing more than berating America for “interfering all over the world”
I could understand, if not approve, the US saying goodbye to Ukraine. It's their making common cause with Russia, by any measure a far weaker power than the USA, that is so despicable.
“I could understand, if not approve, Britain saying goodbye to Bulgaria. It’s their making common cause with the Ottoman Empire, by any measure a far weaker power than the British Empire, that is so despicable.”
The relevance of that being?
Sometimes it’s necessary to prop up a declining power that you might not approve of.
"So… in my last piece I showed that US economic strength was a function of domestic demand."
You lost me at line one.
Suggested perhaps, certainly didn't show.
I'm sorry to lose you Omnium... especially as you didn't get to the one weird trick.
The problem with this "trick" is that if the problem in your economy is excessive consumption and insufficient investment then a policy that gives rise to capital gains on non-economic assets such as housing simply aggravates the problem by encouraging yet more consumption.
So, such a policy might well make sense for Germany which has had excessive saving for a long time but it makes no sense whatsoever for either the UK or the US. What we both need is a gentle deflation of our housing bubbles which encourages people to save in other ways rather than relying upon the inflation of their major asset, thus increasing the capital available for investment in production rather than consumption.
We have excess consumption in this country and have had for nearly 30 years now, hence our continuous trade deficit. The last thing we want to do is increase it further by inflating the housing market which already has major secondary effects in reducing job mobility and the creation of hubs with sufficient skills to encourage rapid growth. We need the opposite and if that puts even further pressure on countries dependent upon external demand, like Germany, to increase domestic demand, we just might be doing them a favour.
We don’t have excess consumption. We have insufficient production.
So we need to invest more to increase production to match our consumption. But you really can't spend the same money twice. You either spend it on imports that have been produced elsewhere or you invest it creating future production. We need a lot more of the latter and less of the former, at least in the short term.
You don't need to invest to increase production. You get your foot off businesses' throats and they increase production for you.
I am not suggesting that the government invests. I am suggesting our economy invests. Businesses will, in large part, be able to increase output if they have access to affordable capital. That requires a pool of savings.
At the end of the day, whilst it would clearly be preferable if the US did agree, this is what we and other European countries need to do whether the US agrees or not.
"So… in my last piece I showed that US economic strength was a function of domestic demand."
You lost me at line one.
Suggested perhaps, certainly didn't show.
I'm sorry to lose you Omnium... especially as you didn't get to the one weird trick.
The problem with this "trick" is that if the problem in your economy is excessive consumption and insufficient investment then a policy that gives rise to capital gains on non-economic assets such as housing simply aggravates the problem by encouraging yet more consumption.
So, such a policy might well make sense for Germany which has had excessive saving for a long time but it makes no sense whatsoever for either the UK or the US. What we both need is a gentle deflation of our housing bubbles which encourages people to save in other ways rather than relying upon the inflation of their major asset, thus increasing the capital available for investment in production rather than consumption.
We have excess consumption in this country and have had for nearly 30 years now, hence our continuous trade deficit. The last thing we want to do is increase it further by inflating the housing market which already has major secondary effects in reducing job mobility and the creation of hubs with sufficient skills to encourage rapid growth. We need the opposite and if that puts even further pressure on countries dependent upon external demand, like Germany, to increase domestic demand, we just might be doing them a favour.
We don’t have excess consumption. We have insufficient production.
So we need to invest more to increase production to match our consumption. But you really can't spend the same money twice. You either spend it on imports that have been produced elsewhere or you invest it creating future production. We need a lot more of the latter and less of the former, at least in the short term.
You don't need to invest to increase production. You get your foot off businesses' throats and they increase production for you.
I am not suggesting that the government invests. I am suggesting our economy invests. Businesses will, in large part, be able to increase output if they have access to affordable capital. That requires a pool of savings.
Oh good. I was imagining a future full of DavidL inspired Humber Bridges.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I think that makes sense. It seems that the US wants to carve up the Arctic for oil, gas, and mineral extraction, striking some sort of deal with Russia, and to boost their territorial claim by taking Canada and Greenland.
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
At the end of the day, whilst it would clearly be preferable if the US did agree, this is what we and other European countries need to do whether the US agrees or not.
The US won’t agree although quite possibly the Pentagon will.
Trump has sold Ukraine to Putler. He won’t appreciate Europe getting in the way.
"So… in my last piece I showed that US economic strength was a function of domestic demand."
You lost me at line one.
Suggested perhaps, certainly didn't show.
I'm sorry to lose you Omnium... especially as you didn't get to the one weird trick.
The problem with this "trick" is that if the problem in your economy is excessive consumption and insufficient investment then a policy that gives rise to capital gains on non-economic assets such as housing simply aggravates the problem by encouraging yet more consumption.
So, such a policy might well make sense for Germany which has had excessive saving for a long time but it makes no sense whatsoever for either the UK or the US. What we both need is a gentle deflation of our housing bubbles which encourages people to save in other ways rather than relying upon the inflation of their major asset, thus increasing the capital available for investment in production rather than consumption.
We have excess consumption in this country and have had for nearly 30 years now, hence our continuous trade deficit. The last thing we want to do is increase it further by inflating the housing market which already has major secondary effects in reducing job mobility and the creation of hubs with sufficient skills to encourage rapid growth. We need the opposite and if that puts even further pressure on countries dependent upon external demand, like Germany, to increase domestic demand, we just might be doing them a favour.
We don’t have excess consumption. We have insufficient production.
So we need to invest more to increase production to match our consumption. But you really can't spend the same money twice. You either spend it on imports that have been produced elsewhere or you invest it creating future production. We need a lot more of the latter and less of the former, at least in the short term.
You don't need to invest to increase production. You get your foot off businesses' throats and they increase production for you.
I am not suggesting that the government invests. I am suggesting our economy invests. Businesses will, in large part, be able to increase output if they have access to affordable capital. That requires a pool of savings.
This is a much underappreciated point: banking regulation is such that it is extremely difficult for firms that are not enormous to borrow money. Even for businesses doing £40m turnover, looking to borrow £5m, you will find that banks demand Director's personal guarantees.
It's a lot easier to get small and midsize business funding in Germany or France.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
i seem to remember you disagreeing very strongly with people on here - @gardenwalker and others - at the beginning of this war who were arguing that Ukraine couldn't win and should accept some kind of peace deal.
so are you now saying that they were right and you were wrong?
Er, I believe it was me - after my first visit to Ukraine in late spring 2023 - who began to point out that they simply couldn’t win due to lack of men. This was emphatically reinforced by my visit in summer 2024. By then I was advocating for a deal
I received vitriolic scorn for it. With the warmongers constantly claiming Ukraine was “about to reach the Sea of Azov” when this was palpable nonsense
It’s a pity @Sean_F is one of these people. The whole geopolitical tragedy of Ukraine has somewhat unhinged him. I hope he regains his sanity
PB is becoming intolerably dumb and @Sean_F is clever
I'm a historian. I know how dangerous it is to throw people to the wolves, in the hope that they'll eat you last.
There is no deal to be done. What Trump wants is his own version of Molotov/Ribbentrop.
Get a grip. Putin is not going to invade America
Why ever not? After all, Alaska was Russian pre-1867!
At the end of the day, whilst it would clearly be preferable if the US did agree, this is what we and other European countries need to do whether the US agrees or not.
The US won’t agree although quite possibly the Pentagon will.
Trump has sold Ukraine to Putler. He won’t appreciate Europe getting in the way.
Maybe we say it's French/UK boots on the ground unless it's a deal Ukraine is happy with?
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I think that makes sense. It seems that the US wants to carve up the Arctic for oil, gas, and mineral extraction, striking some sort of deal with Russia, and to boost their territorial claim by taking Canada and Greenland.
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
He’s half right
America has not lost the battle for tech supremacy with China. But it is clear that America will not clearly win (cf DeepSeek) - it will likely be a score draw and maintaining parity is going to be expensive and crucial
Hence the retreat to a transactional new foreign policy. America needs to simultaneously be more ruthless, cost effective and focused
It certainly can’t afford to support whiney Europeans who can easily afford to defend themselves but prefer to spend the money on importing hostile non European migrants
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I think that makes sense. It seems that the US wants to carve up the Arctic for oil, gas, and mineral extraction, striking some sort of deal with Russia, and to boost their territorial claim by taking Canada and Greenland.
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
It’s sanewashing what’s essentially a self destructive policy. It will likely do more damage to Europe than the US, but it will weaken both.
And depending on how it plays out, it might even mean a permanent end to the almost century long alliance between the two.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
I don't trust any position Trump seemingly takes as a genuine indicator of what he believes. For example, if he keeps saying he loves Putin, it's more likely to be a tactic of some type rather than what he really thinks.
I don't trust any position Trump seemingly takes as a genuine indicator of what he believes. For example, if he keeps saying he loves Putin, it's more likely to be a tactic of some type rather than what he really thinks.
America has not lost the battle for tech supremacy with China. But it is clear that America will not clearly win (cf DeepSeek) - it will likely be a score draw and maintaining parity is going to be expensive and crucial
The progress that China has made is really quite incredible. In semiconductors, automotive, aerospace and other areas like renewable energy, China is gaining ground so quickly that unless something catastrophic happens soon I would expect them to take the lead.
The people who said "they'll never catch up" were likely saying similar things about Japan and South Korea decades ago. Chinese people are every bit as smart and hardworking as any American, and there are 1.4 billion of them.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I think that makes sense. It seems that the US wants to carve up the Arctic for oil, gas, and mineral extraction, striking some sort of deal with Russia, and to boost their territorial claim by taking Canada and Greenland.
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
That makes a lot of sense.
It's interesting how people "fight the last war". I remember when there was a generation of tech people who thought IBM always won, and then Microsoft ate their lunch.
Then everyone assumed that Microsoft always won... and Google and Apple ate their lunch.
And now, I'm sure, people will assume Google and Apple will always win, and someone else will win.
The US is doing that now. They're fighting the last war, in terms of trying to secure fossil fuel resources, because that was power (ba da boom) in the past.
I don't trust any position Trump seemingly takes as a genuine indicator of what he believes. For example, if he keeps saying he loves Putin, it's more likely to be a tactic of some type rather than what he really thinks.
No. No. 100 times no. This type of wishful projection got him elected. As I said the other day similar errors are weirdly prevalent amongst all shades of opinion.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I think that makes sense. It seems that the US wants to carve up the Arctic for oil, gas, and mineral extraction, striking some sort of deal with Russia, and to boost their territorial claim by taking Canada and Greenland.
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
It’s sanewashing what’s essentially a self destructive policy. It will likely do more damage to Europe than the US, but it will weaken both.
And depending on how it plays out, it might even mean a permanent end to the almost century long alliance between the two.
I agree that is is destructive, I'm not arguing it's good at all. But it does seem to be broadly what the US under Trump is thinking. Divide the world into three spheres, and make hay by pillaging the Arctic.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I think that makes sense. It seems that the US wants to carve up the Arctic for oil, gas, and mineral extraction, striking some sort of deal with Russia, and to boost their territorial claim by taking Canada and Greenland.
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
It’s sanewashing what’s essentially a self destructive policy. It will likely do more damage to Europe than the US, but it will weaken both.
And depending on how it plays out, it might even mean a permanent end to the almost century long alliance between the two.
I agree that is is destructive, I'm not arguing it's good at all. But it does seem to be broadly what the US under Trump is thinking. Divide the world into three spheres, and make hay by pillaging the Arctic.
Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania. Happily our role is not to be Airstrip One, at least not until RefUK take over.
AI doesn’t think. It predicts. AI doesn’t understand. It associates. AI doesn’t create. It remixes. The real danger isn’t AI becoming human. It’s humans mistaking AI for human.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
Whatever shenanigans Trump ends up pulling, he isn't going to be President in 40 years' time. So what does he care?
America has not lost the battle for tech supremacy with China. But it is clear that America will not clearly win (cf DeepSeek) - it will likely be a score draw and maintaining parity is going to be expensive and crucial
The progress that China has made is really quite incredible. In semiconductors, automotive, aerospace and other areas like renewable energy, China is gaining ground so quickly that unless something catastrophic happens soon I would expect them to take the lead.
The people who said "they'll never catch up" were likely saying similar things about Japan and South Korea decades ago. Chinese people are every bit as smart and hardworking as any American, and there are 1.4 billion of them.
Yes. It will be close and America COULD lose
Hence a total focus on America as a domestic isolated techno power and the abandonment of frivolous commitments abroad
You can say that this is misguided or even immoral (forsaking allies) but it is not obviously illogical
Apparently Trump is going to be invited for a second state visit !
OMFG why !
Because he is the president of the USA. It’s quite simple. And no matter what dickish thing he’s done you still keep talking and trying to steer him back to the light.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
Apparently Trump is going to be invited for a second state visit !
OMFG why !
Because he is the president of the USA. It’s quite simple. And no matter what dickish thing he’s done you still keep talking and trying to steer him back to the light.
That's all Met police leave cancelled for the week in question then.
Apparently Trump is going to be invited for a second state visit !
OMFG why !
Because he is the president of the USA. It’s quite simple. And no matter what dickish thing he’s done you still keep talking and trying to steer him back to the light.
The honour of a second state visit shouldn’t be afforded to traitorous scum !
I won't say encouraging an unsustainable housing boom using mortgage interest tax relief is the worst idea I've ever heard to boost an economy. Probably anything Corbyn came up with just about beat it. But it's close.
With an asset class with constrained supply, artificially increasing demand will raise the price, so speculators will get drawn in, price rises will soon become unsustainable, you'll get a crash, millions of people will get burned, the financial system will get trashed and the economy will take half a decade or more to recover as the overhang of debt take that long to be cleared.
Which, with a heavy dose of help from the ERM, was roughly what happened to us between about 1986 and 1993.
Apparently Trump is going to be invited for a second state visit !
OMFG why !
Because he is the president of the USA. It’s quite simple. And no matter what dickish thing he’s done you still keep talking and trying to steer him back to the light.
That's all Met police leave cancelled for the week in question then.
Do we even have enough police for the likely protests?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
i seem to remember you disagreeing very strongly with people on here - @gardenwalker and others - at the beginning of this war who were arguing that Ukraine couldn't win and should accept some kind of peace deal.
so are you now saying that they were right and you were wrong?
Er, I believe it was me - after my first visit to Ukraine in late spring 2023 - who began to point out that they simply couldn’t win due to lack of men. This was emphatically reinforced by my visit in summer 2024. By then I was advocating for a deal
I received vitriolic scorn for it. With the warmongers constantly claiming Ukraine was “about to reach the Sea of Azov” when this was palpable nonsense
It’s a pity @Sean_F is one of these people. The whole geopolitical tragedy of Ukraine has somewhat unhinged him. I hope he regains his sanity
PB is becoming intolerably dumb and @Sean_F is clever
Yet they have won on the battlefield.
All it requires is for continued military support.
I won't say encouraging an unsustainable housing boom using mortgage interest tax relief is the worst idea I've ever heard to boost an economy. Probably anything Corbyn came up with just about beat it. But it's close.
With an asset class with constrained supply, artificially increasing demand will raise the price, so speculators will get drawn in, price rises will soon become unsustainable, you'll get a crash, millions of people will get burned, the financial system will get trashed and the economy will take half a decade or more to recover as the overhang of debt take that long to be cleared.
Which, with a heavy dose of help from the ERM, was roughly what happened to us between about 1986 and 1993.
You use it to break the cycle that the eurozone is in right now, where people will not spend, and therefore the economy is completely dependent on external demand.
Apparently Trump is going to be invited for a second state visit !
OMFG why !
Ugh, Why humiliate ourselves like this?
I’d understand if by some miracle a peace deal was achieved in Ukraine that was fair . Then invite him after that . To do so now is ridiculous and looks like legitimising Trumps disgusting fawning of Putin.
Labour obviously want to start polling in single digits .
Apparently Trump is going to be invited for a second state visit !
OMFG why !
Because he is the president of the USA. It’s quite simple. And no matter what dickish thing he’s done you still keep talking and trying to steer him back to the light.
The honour of a second state visit shouldn’t be afforded to traitorous scum !
We’ve entertained such before.
While things are still possibly in the air, it makes no sense to treat relations with the US as though everything has already been both decided and done. Even if the relationship becomes nakedly transactional, transaction will still be unavoidable.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
I don't think the question will arise. But it does seem like they may be sacrificing some longer term benefits for short term dick waving.
Elon was such an autistic geek when he started dating in his late teens his regular opening line was
“What do you think about electric cars?”
He didn’t do very well
The musk-hatred on here is quite ironic because if I had to choose one group of people, known to me, who are on average most like Elon Musk (minus half the brains) it would be “all the nerds on PB”
I won't say encouraging an unsustainable housing boom using mortgage interest tax relief is the worst idea I've ever heard to boost an economy. Probably anything Corbyn came up with just about beat it. But it's close.
With an asset class with constrained supply, artificially increasing demand will raise the price, so speculators will get drawn in, price rises will soon become unsustainable, you'll get a crash, millions of people will get burned, the financial system will get trashed and the economy will take half a decade or more to recover as the overhang of debt take that long to be cleared.
Which, with a heavy dose of help from the ERM, was roughly what happened to us between about 1986 and 1993.
You use it to break the cycle that the eurozone is in right now, where people will not spend, and therefore the economy is completely dependent on external demand.
Doesn't that only work if you're a home owner ?
With the opposite effect for those who aren't.
Plus leading to even more intergenerational inequality and the skilled young leaving for elsewhere ?
"So… in my last piece I showed that US economic strength was a function of domestic demand."
You lost me at line one.
Suggested perhaps, certainly didn't show.
I'm sorry to lose you Omnium... especially as you didn't get to the one weird trick.
The problem with this "trick" is that if the problem in your economy is excessive consumption and insufficient investment then a policy that gives rise to capital gains on non-economic assets such as housing simply aggravates the problem by encouraging yet more consumption.
So, such a policy might well make sense for Germany which has had excessive saving for a long time but it makes no sense whatsoever for either the UK or the US. What we both need is a gentle deflation of our housing bubbles which encourages people to save in other ways rather than relying upon the inflation of their major asset, thus increasing the capital available for investment in production rather than consumption.
We have excess consumption in this country and have had for nearly 30 years now, hence our continuous trade deficit. The last thing we want to do is increase it further by inflating the housing market which already has major secondary effects in reducing job mobility and the creation of hubs with sufficient skills to encourage rapid growth. We need the opposite and if that puts even further pressure on countries dependent upon external demand, like Germany, to increase domestic demand, we just might be doing them a favour.
We don’t have excess consumption. We have insufficient production.
So we need to invest more to increase production to match our consumption. But you really can't spend the same money twice. You either spend it on imports that have been produced elsewhere or you invest it creating future production. We need a lot more of the latter and less of the former, at least in the short term.
You don't need to invest to increase production. You get your foot off businesses' throats and they increase production for you.
I am not suggesting that the government invests. I am suggesting our economy invests. Businesses will, in large part, be able to increase output if they have access to affordable capital. That requires a pool of savings.
Oh good. I was imagining a future full of DavidL inspired Humber Bridges.
We need to build houses until investing in house construction gets you an OK-average return. Not a guaranteed rate of return.
Aside from minor things like enriching the low paid/rental class - who could then afford avocado on toast - this would move a river if investment money towards other things. As part of an expanded economy.
At the moment we have a version of the Resource Curse, we have built for ourselves.
At the end of the day, whilst it would clearly be preferable if the US did agree, this is what we and other European countries need to do whether the US agrees or not.
Yes, although one wonders how much it can possibly be and how effective.
A 'deal' of some kind was always likely unless one side collapsed completely, and sadly Russia wasn't going to do that, the question was surely the nature of a deal (best case but highly improbable scenario being a return to 2014 boundaries). I don't think it makes sense to call people warmongers for supporting Ukraine to be in a better position, ideally to get victory, but if not to get as 'good' a deal as they can. US support could have helped get such a deal, but they are no longer interested in that.
If people think any support extending a 'futile' fight is akin to warmongering then we're back to the logical conclusion being there should have been instant surrender, and yet time has shown that would have been foolish of Ukraine because it did regain some areas. So the warmonger argument is fatuous without identifying what was the point when resistance was no longer to be supported.
I won't say encouraging an unsustainable housing boom using mortgage interest tax relief is the worst idea I've ever heard to boost an economy. Probably anything Corbyn came up with just about beat it. But it's close.
With an asset class with constrained supply, artificially increasing demand will raise the price, so speculators will get drawn in, price rises will soon become unsustainable, you'll get a crash, millions of people will get burned, the financial system will get trashed and the economy will take half a decade or more to recover as the overhang of debt take that long to be cleared.
Which, with a heavy dose of help from the ERM, was roughly what happened to us between about 1986 and 1993.
I bought my first flat, in 1998. For the exact number of pounds it sold for in 1988, when it was built.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
Wrong. The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
The first country to reach AGI (let alone ASI) will have instant and humongous power over the rest of the world. All else is trivial
Situational AWARENESS
You seem to think AGI is a single thing. It's not.
Computers will reach AGI in different areas at different times; in some areas they may already be there, while in others there is still a long way to go.
And the difference between the cutting edge closed (i.e. Grok-3 or GPT 4.5) and cutting edge open (LLaMA or DeepSeek) is tiny - a matter of months at most.
AI is a massive leveler, not something where one country achieves it and everyone else bows down to them.
Am I the only one who thinks a State visit is a terrific idea? Particularly when announced ahead of a meeting? It's leverage Trump understands.
As something to dangle, sure.
Here's the menu, Donald:
Tea with the King and tour of royal castles and then a march past by military on the Mall, all on BBC live coverage for the whole day with Clive and David commentating == keep US troops in Europe.
Tea with Lucas Tindall at the shit cafe the losers use in the Apprentice followed by an inspection of sea scouts in Stoke, all to be broadcast on channel 4 == US leaves Ukr and Europe in the shitter.
The Art of the Deal, Donald, the art of the deal...
Elon was such an autistic geek when he started dating in his late teens his regular opening line was
“What do you think about electric cars?”
He didn’t do very well
The musk-hatred on here is quite ironic because if I had to choose one group of people, known to me, who are on average most like Elon Musk (minus half the brains) it would be “all the nerds on PB”
You need to catch up with the times, nerds generally don't mind being called nerds, so it doesn't sting.
And anyway people don't generally dislike Musk for being a nerd, so who'd mind that comparison? Liking rockets and Lord of the Rings are things many on here would approve of.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
Wrong. The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
The first country to reach AGI (let alone ASI) will have instant and humongous power over the rest of the world. All else is trivial
Situational AWARENESS
The defence cuts are bugger all to do with AI, for now.
The cash is apparently earmarked for border security, and missile defence. The latter certainly has the capability of swallowing that much.
On missile defence, the experts are either the US or Israel - for the upper tier interceptors than can stop a full ICBM/SLBM.
To get an idea of what is required, the following is from the 1960s. It’s a point defence interceptor missile - designed to catch the last few warheads that have got through the midcourse systems.
CSPAN Caller from West Virginia: I’m a diabetic and I’m on Medicare. When Biden was in there, my insulin was $6 for a 28 day supply. I just went to CVS, it went back up to $80… https://x.com/Acyn/status/1893021979919159722
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
The problem is, of course, is that the end logically conclusion to this is a single world state. Now that might be a far future 'Star Trek' aim, but its not possible now really is it?
On Vance's argument, the UK should invade Ireland, France invade Belgium and so on and so forth until there is only one state left. The smaller defender should just immediately surrender because there is no point.
In amongst all the unpleasantness, I had a lovely, almost spiritual experience today. I've been to York for the day with the family. A largely good day with the people I love best, though a few minor gripes of a 49 year old man ("why are we still in Urban Outfitters?" "This museum is a bit depressing" "I'm sure the Shambles was never this busy 30 years ago before Harry Potter" "you have a pudding menu over 60% of which is churros and you are out of churros?") all of which melted away when we returned for a last look at the Minster, having seen there was a light display on through February. It was brilliant. Quite an astonishingly well done bit of artistry on a building I already have a strong emotional reaction to (is it my favourite building? Probably it is.). I could have watched it again and again and again but alas TransPennine Express waits for no man. But if you have chance in the next two weeks you should see it.
Am I the only one who thinks a State visit is a terrific idea? Particularly when announced ahead of a meeting? It's leverage Trump understands.
As something to dangle, sure.
Here's the menu, Donald:
Tea with the King and tour of royal castles and then a march past by military on the Mall, all on BBC live coverage for the whole day with Clive and David commentating == keep US troops in Europe.
Tea with Lucas Tindall at the shit cafe the losers use in the Apprentice followed by an inspection of sea scouts in Stoke, all to be broadcast on channel 4 == US leaves Ukr and Europe in the shitter.
The Art of the Deal, Donald, the art of the deal...
Am I the only one who thinks a State visit is a terrific idea? Particularly when announced ahead of a meeting? It's leverage Trump understands.
Yes, nothing wrong with a bit of flattery for the orange man-baby.
Though the prospects of mass protests should be considered. Every house along his route should display the Ukranian flag.
"The crowds turning out for me were HUGE, and they had all these Ukrainian flags to show support for my big beautiful deal. Then King Charles, nice guy, told me I was really great at golf".
CSPAN Caller from West Virginia: I’m a diabetic and I’m on Medicare. When Biden was in there, my insulin was $6 for a 28 day supply. I just went to CVS, it went back up to $80… https://x.com/Acyn/status/1893021979919159722
It actually overestimates the USA’s strength, and certainly Russia’s.
Let’s say we get to the point where the UK, France, Scandinavia, maybe Germany, have ramped up defence spending, what happens when the US needs help, and its former allies say “Go fuck yourself.”
Trump believes the US is strong enough never to need friends, it can just bully other nations with no real consequences.
As you say, that's overestimating its strength. Quite grossly so. The US has wielded such enormous influence in the past 80 years because it was the centre of a web of co-operation encompassing the Anglosphere, Europe and chunks of Asia.
An isolated US that has turned friends into enemies will be much diminished.
This is a US defence insider setting out the same stall - worth a listen
Elon was such an autistic geek when he started dating in his late teens his regular opening line was
“What do you think about electric cars?”
He didn’t do very well
The musk-hatred on here is quite ironic because if I had to choose one group of people, known to me, who are on average most like Elon Musk (minus half the brains) it would be “all the nerds on PB”
On here? Musk has UK approval ratings that makes "traitor" Starmer look good.
And that was back on 9th January, pre-Nazi salute. In a country that defines itself on standing against Nazism "if necessary, alone", I doubt they've improved. You'd have to be properly weird to have a favourable view of him.
CSPAN Caller from West Virginia: I’m a diabetic and I’m on Medicare. When Biden was in there, my insulin was $6 for a 28 day supply. I just went to CVS, it went back up to $80… https://x.com/Acyn/status/1893021979919159722
Trump voter?
Who knows ? Plenty of such folk will be.
The point is, if there are free elections over the next four years, Congress at least is unlikely to stay Republican controlled.
In amongst all the unpleasantness, I had a lovely, almost spiritual experience today. I've been to York for the day with the family. A largely good day with the people I love best, though a few minor gripes of a 49 year old man ("why are we still in Urban Outfitters?" "This museum is a bit depressing" "I'm sure the Shambles was never this busy 30 years ago before Harry Potter" "you have a pudding menu over 60% of which is churros and you are out of churros?") all of which melted away when we returned for a last look at the Minster, having seen there was a light display on through February. It was brilliant. Quite an astonishingly well done bit of artistry on a building I already have a strong emotional reaction to (is it my favourite building? Probably it is.). I could have watched it again and again and again but alas TransPennine Express waits for no man. But if you have chance in the next two weeks you should see it.
They’ve periodically been doing light shows inside for a while now - the one they did last October to mark the 40th anniversary of the fire was impressive.
Am I the only one who thinks a State visit is a terrific idea? Particularly when announced ahead of a meeting? It's leverage Trump understands.
Yes, nothing wrong with a bit of flattery for the orange man-baby.
Though the prospects of mass protests should be considered. Every house along his route should display the Ukranian flag.
The thought of Trump, riding to The Palace in a gilded carriage, then being greeted by the king, wearing a Ukrainian themed tie, and trying to hand Trump a Ukrainian flag in front of the world media.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
The problem is, of course, is that the end logically conclusion to this is a single world state. Now that might be a far future 'Star Trek' aim, but its not possible now really is it?
On Vance's argument, the UK should invade Ireland, France invade Belgium and so on and so forth until there is only one state left. The smaller defender should just immediately surrender because there is no point.
They have discovered my overall life philosophy. Damn them.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
Wrong. The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
The first country to reach AGI (let alone ASI) will have instant and humongous power over the rest of the world. All else is trivial
Situational AWARENESS
You seem to think AGI is a single thing. It's not.
Computers will reach AGI in different areas at different times; in some areas they may already be there, while in others there is still a long way to go.
And the difference between the cutting edge closed (i.e. Grok-3 or GPT 4.5) and cutting edge open (LLaMA or DeepSeek) is tiny - a matter of months at most.
AI is a massive leveler, not something where one country achieves it and everyone else bows down to them.
Stop projecting bullshit opinions on to me. It’s really getting quite boring
One thing is for sure, for £1bn, and with only a decade to exploit the copyright before expiry, they’re going to be pumping out a load of garbage along with anything decent they might, by some miracle, occasionally happen upon.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
Wrong. The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
The first country to reach AGI (let alone ASI) will have instant and humongous power over the rest of the world. All else is trivial
Situational AWARENESS
You seem to think AGI is a single thing. It's not.
Computers will reach AGI in different areas at different times; in some areas they may already be there, while in others there is still a long way to go.
And the difference between the cutting edge closed (i.e. Grok-3 or GPT 4.5) and cutting edge open (LLaMA or DeepSeek) is tiny - a matter of months at most.
AI is a massive leveler, not something where one country achieves it and everyone else bows down to them.
Stop projecting bullshit opinions on to me. It’s really getting quite boring
How do you know ? Robert could be having a great time.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
Wrong. The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
The first country to reach AGI (let alone ASI) will have instant and humongous power over the rest of the world. All else is trivial
Situational AWARENESS
You seem to think AGI is a single thing. It's not.
Computers will reach AGI in different areas at different times; in some areas they may already be there, while in others there is still a long way to go.
And the difference between the cutting edge closed (i.e. Grok-3 or GPT 4.5) and cutting edge open (LLaMA or DeepSeek) is tiny - a matter of months at most.
AI is a massive leveler, not something where one country achieves it and everyone else bows down to them.
You're not going to get a Gazette article out of that though. Possibly you'd be made 'Senior' technology correspondent for the BBC however.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 35m I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
They likely won’t care
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
Wrong. The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
The first country to reach AGI (let alone ASI) will have instant and humongous power over the rest of the world. All else is trivial
Situational AWARENESS
You seem to think AGI is a single thing. It's not.
Computers will reach AGI in different areas at different times; in some areas they may already be there, while in others there is still a long way to go.
And the difference between the cutting edge closed (i.e. Grok-3 or GPT 4.5) and cutting edge open (LLaMA or DeepSeek) is tiny - a matter of months at most.
AI is a massive leveler, not something where one country achieves it and everyone else bows down to them.
Stop projecting bullshit opinions on to me. It’s really getting quite boring
I won't say encouraging an unsustainable housing boom using mortgage interest tax relief is the worst idea I've ever heard to boost an economy. Probably anything Corbyn came up with just about beat it. But it's close.
With an asset class with constrained supply, artificially increasing demand will raise the price, so speculators will get drawn in, price rises will soon become unsustainable, you'll get a crash, millions of people will get burned, the financial system will get trashed and the economy will take half a decade or more to recover as the overhang of debt take that long to be cleared.
Which, with a heavy dose of help from the ERM, was roughly what happened to us between about 1986 and 1993.
You use it to break the cycle that the eurozone is in right now, where people will not spend, and therefore the economy is completely dependent on external demand.
Giving a bunch of taxpayers' money to homeowners, however disguised, would cause a much more damaging cycle of higher house prices, an unsustainable consumption boom, then subsequent crash.
You need to learn to think things through beyond the primary effects of policy changes. I know it needs patience and experience to do so, but it is important as the secondary effects of policy changes are often much more significant.
If you really want to stimulate the economy by handing out lots of other people's money, at least do it so the effects are spread across the whole economy, not concentrated in one already hugely distorted and important sector.
Cutting VAT temporarily would be a much more effective way of boosting consumer spending without dangerous effects on the housing market and financial system.
Reports in WH that an irate and humiliated Trump refuses to accept USA Hockey defeat and is claiming it was “rigged for Canada.” Something about refs allowing excess Canadian players on ice. NHL say no evidence anything would have changed outcome. Hmmm.
On the subject of AI, Perplexity have taken R1 and pulled all the Chinese censorship bullshit out of it. You can download it from Ollama, but you will need an absolutely *monster* setup to run it.
What if this state visit is arranged and Trump in the meantime gets even worse , sticks tariffs on the UK and becomes even more enamoured with Putin .
You can’t rescind the invitation as that would cause major political fallout .
Wouldn't that already be "major political fallout?"
I remember a while back mentioning my vision of Farage as a pretty good "It's a Knock Out" host.
Now, in my feverish vision, I can see a two-lane track. Trump in one, JD in the other. Farage wetting himself laughing as both fail at various parts of the trial. Intermittent commentary by Boris and occasionally Truss (everyone else looks politely confused).
Voters +1 or -1 in real time.
There's a modern-day "Year of the Sex Olympics" been waiting to be made for some years now. If only someone had the bravery to make it.
Comments
Exclusive: Keir Starmer will unveil a “triple whammy” support package for Ukraine on Monday despite Trump’s Kyiv criticism
:: New military aid from MOD
:: New sanctions from Foreign Office
:: ‘Dirty money’ crackdown from H Office
Will White House agree?
https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1893056607220601328
Putin is a clear and present danger to Europe now that America is retreating. My personal belief is that Europeans should pool resources and create a continent-wide independent nuclear deterrent (tactical and strategic). The UK can lead this
Indeed I have thought this for some time - it was always unwise of us to be SO reliant on the USA (in multiple ways)
My argument is that much of this makes sense IF YOU ARE AMERICAN. A retreat into transactional isolationism. The Americans rightly perceive that wealthy Western Europe can and should shift for itself, militarily
This pivot has been happening for some time. The Yanks warned us - Obama told us “the Pacific is the USA’s focus and future”
Now Trump has come along and made all this very quickly obvious in the ham fisted way of a narcissistic, sociopathic New York realty mogul
But it would have happened anyway, eventually
And maybe you were right. Maybe the world would now be better off, maybe a lot of people wouldn't have died, maybe Trump wouldn't have won the election.
But for how long will the rest of the US tolerate being ruled by Caligula?
I realise that this all sounds mad, and that's because it is mad, the US is retreating to the 19th century.
Trump has sold Ukraine to Putler. He won’t appreciate Europe getting in the way.
It's a lot easier to get small and midsize business funding in Germany or France.
America has not lost the battle for tech supremacy with China. But it is clear that America will not clearly win (cf DeepSeek) - it will likely be a score draw and maintaining parity is going to be expensive and crucial
Hence the retreat to a transactional new foreign policy. America needs to simultaneously be more ruthless, cost effective and focused
It certainly can’t afford to support whiney Europeans who can easily afford to defend themselves but prefer to spend the money on importing hostile non European migrants
That is exactly the Trump/Vance position
It will likely do more damage to Europe than the US, but it will weaken both.
And depending on how it plays out, it might even mean a permanent end to the almost century long alliance between the two.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
35m
I wonder how happy the US would be, in 40 years' time, in a world in which the EU spent as high a share of its GDP as the US on its military. One should always beware of the adage: Be careful what you wish for...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/us/politics/trump-maine-governor-transgender-athletes.html
Gov of Maine: "I’m complying with the state and federal laws”
Mr. Trump replied that “we are the federal law”
The people who said "they'll never catch up" were likely saying similar things about Japan and South Korea decades ago. Chinese people are every bit as smart and hardworking as any American, and there are 1.4 billion of them.
It's interesting how people "fight the last war". I remember when there was a generation of tech people who thought IBM always won, and then Microsoft ate their lunch.
Then everyone assumed that Microsoft always won... and Google and Apple ate their lunch.
And now, I'm sure, people will assume Google and Apple will always win, and someone else will win.
The US is doing that now. They're fighting the last war, in terms of trying to secure fossil fuel resources, because that was power (ba da boom) in the past.
https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1893013612253356088
“Is Maine here? Are you not going to comply with [the trans sports ban]?...”
“See you in court.”
“Good. I’ll see you in court… Enjoy your life after governor because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.”
People haven’t noticed that Trump is also massively reducing US defence spending - or trying to
“White House eyes 8% cut to defense budget to boost Trump priorities”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/02/19/white-house-eyes-8-cut-to-defense-budget-to-boost-trump-priorities/
ALL that matters now is winning - or at least not losing - the race to AGI. Everything else is trivial
And on that note I’m gonna return to Walter Isaacson’s excellent biography of Elon Musk
Goodnight 😴
AI doesn’t think. It predicts.
AI doesn’t understand. It associates.
AI doesn’t create. It remixes.
The real danger isn’t AI becoming human. It’s humans mistaking AI for human.
OMFG why !
Hence a total focus on America as a domestic isolated techno power and the abandonment of frivolous commitments abroad
You can say that this is misguided or even immoral (forsaking allies) but it is not obviously illogical
The 8% is likely to be redirected, not cut.
So, for example, BMD rather than F35s.
The chances of this being done to positive effect under the direction of Trump/Hegseth are… questionable.
But it will certainly provide more funding to some of the billionaire startups (Anduril, for example), at the expense of some established players.
With an asset class with constrained supply, artificially increasing demand will raise the price, so speculators will get drawn in, price rises will soon become unsustainable, you'll get a crash, millions of people will get burned, the financial system will get trashed and the economy will take half a decade or more to recover as the overhang of debt take that long to be cleared.
Which, with a heavy dose of help from the ERM, was roughly what happened to us between about 1986 and 1993.
Situational AWARENESS
All it requires is for continued military support.
Labour obviously want to start polling in single digits .
While things are still possibly in the air, it makes no sense to treat relations with the US as though everything has already been both decided and done.
Even if the relationship becomes nakedly transactional, transaction will still be unavoidable.
We can turn out a heckle the fucker, though.
Unfortunately Andrew infects Trump with some fatal virus which kills them both.
The cash is apparently earmarked for border security, and missile defence.
The latter certainly has the capability of swallowing that much.
Particularly when announced ahead of a meeting?
It's leverage Trump understands.
Elon was such an autistic geek when he started dating in his late teens his regular opening line was
“What do you think about electric cars?”
He didn’t do very well
The musk-hatred on here is quite ironic because if I had to choose one group of people, known to me, who are on average most like Elon Musk (minus half the brains) it would be “all the nerds on PB”
With the opposite effect for those who aren't.
Plus leading to even more intergenerational inequality and the skilled young leaving for elsewhere ?
Aside from minor things like enriching the low paid/rental class - who could then afford avocado on toast - this would move a river if investment money towards other things. As part of an expanded economy.
At the moment we have a version of the Resource Curse, we have built for ourselves.
Just watching sky and I am a little worried about Tim Montgomerie..
Is he ill?
A 'deal' of some kind was always likely unless one side collapsed completely, and sadly Russia wasn't going to do that, the question was surely the nature of a deal (best case but highly improbable scenario being a return to 2014 boundaries). I don't think it makes sense to call people warmongers for supporting Ukraine to be in a better position, ideally to get victory, but if not to get as 'good' a deal as they can. US support could have helped get such a deal, but they are no longer interested in that.
If people think any support extending a 'futile' fight is akin to warmongering then we're back to the logical conclusion being there should have been instant surrender, and yet time has shown that would have been foolish of Ukraine because it did regain some areas. So the warmonger argument is fatuous without identifying what was the point when resistance was no longer to be supported.
Computers will reach AGI in different areas at different times; in some areas they may already be there, while in others there is still a long way to go.
And the difference between the cutting edge closed (i.e. Grok-3 or GPT 4.5) and cutting edge open (LLaMA or DeepSeek) is tiny - a matter of months at most.
AI is a massive leveler, not something where one country achieves it and everyone else bows down to them.
Tea with the King and tour of royal castles and then a march past by military on the Mall, all on BBC live coverage for the whole day with Clive and David commentating == keep US troops in Europe.
Tea with Lucas Tindall at the shit cafe the losers use in the Apprentice followed by an inspection of sea scouts in Stoke, all to be broadcast on channel 4 == US leaves Ukr and Europe in the shitter.
The Art of the Deal, Donald, the art of the deal...
And anyway people don't generally dislike Musk for being a nerd, so who'd mind that comparison? Liking rockets and Lord of the Rings are things many on here would approve of.
To get an idea of what is required, the following is from the 1960s. It’s a point defence interceptor missile - designed to catch the last few warheads that have got through the midcourse systems.
https://youtu.be/kvZGaMt7UgQ?si=LimkwbOM64NGY3e7
0 - Mach 10 in 5 seconds.
CSPAN Caller from West Virginia: I’m a diabetic and I’m on Medicare. When Biden was in there, my insulin was $6 for a 28 day supply. I just went to CVS, it went back up to $80…
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1893021979919159722
Now that might be a far future 'Star Trek' aim, but its not possible now really is it?
On Vance's argument, the UK should invade Ireland, France invade Belgium and so on and so forth until there is only one state left. The smaller defender should just immediately surrender because there is no point.
I've been to York for the day with the family. A largely good day with the people I love best, though a few minor gripes of a 49 year old man ("why are we still in Urban Outfitters?" "This museum is a bit depressing" "I'm sure the Shambles was never this busy 30 years ago before Harry Potter" "you have a pudding menu over 60% of which is churros and you are out of churros?") all of which melted away when we returned for a last look at the Minster, having seen there was a light display on through February. It was brilliant. Quite an astonishingly well done bit of artistry on a building I already have a strong emotional reaction to (is it my favourite building? Probably it is.). I could have watched it again and again and again but alas TransPennine Express waits for no man.
But if you have chance in the next two weeks you should see it.
Though the prospects of mass protests should be considered. Every house along his route should display the Ukranian flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOyy571-p-k
And that was back on 9th January, pre-Nazi salute. In a country that defines itself on standing against Nazism "if necessary, alone", I doubt they've improved. You'd have to be properly weird to have a favourable view of him.
Plenty of such folk will be.
The point is, if there are free elections over the next four years, Congress at least is unlikely to stay Republican controlled.
As the U.S. turns its back, Europe is scrambling to step up.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-war-in-ukraine-military-aid-package-donald-trump-volodymyr-zelenskyy/
Double what was originally planned.
Using an ancient quirk of Royal Parks law, IIRC.
It stuck in my mind because I asked a lawyer who was involved with New Labour, who told me.
- it was the law
- they needed to use it
- therefore they were obliged to do it, almost morally obliged.
It's enough to make you still have hope.
Bond fans shaken over $1bn Amazon franchise takeover
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/feb/21/ol-bond-super-fans
One thing is for sure, for £1bn, and with only a decade to exploit the copyright before expiry, they’re going to be pumping out a load of garbage along with anything decent they might, by some miracle, occasionally happen upon.
Robert could be having a great time.
You can’t rescind the invitation as that would cause major political fallout .
You need to learn to think things through beyond the primary effects of policy changes. I know it needs patience and experience to do so, but it is important as the secondary effects of policy changes are often much more significant.
If you really want to stimulate the economy by handing out lots of other people's money, at least do it so the effects are spread across the whole economy, not concentrated in one already hugely distorted and important sector.
Cutting VAT temporarily would be a much more effective way of boosting consumer spending without dangerous effects on the housing market and financial system.
https://www.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/eating-gamma-radiation-for-breakfast
Now, in my feverish vision, I can see a two-lane track. Trump in one, JD in the other. Farage wetting himself laughing as both fail at various parts of the trial. Intermittent commentary by Boris and occasionally Truss (everyone else looks politely confused).
Voters +1 or -1 in real time.
There's a modern-day "Year of the Sex Olympics" been waiting to be made for some years now. If only someone had the bravery to make it.