Doesn't matter. The structural forces of capitalism are drawing the USA and China into competition and opposition, and China represents a rising threat to American global hegemony that cannot be ignored. The anti-China stance is a bipartisan consensus. Individuals in certain positions do not matter because the causes of this conflict are systemic.
Biden probably won't pursue silly protectionist policies like Trump, but will pursue regional free trade agreements aimed at containing China and stripping its economic options in the region as the TPP was an attempt at doing. Both will pursue policies aimed at banning threatening Chinese tech exports like Huawei's 5G.
China represents a rising threat to American global hegemony that cannot be ignored. The anti-China stance is a bipartisan consensus.
But the response from Biden vs Trump will have differences in strategy, which must be worth considering. Unless you believe them to be functionally identical.
It sounds like Trump's policies provoke China into a quicker adaptation against US retaliatory tariffs, while Biden's strategy might be more effective in slowing their progress internationally.
I think that the differences between their approaches are dwarfed by the internal instability caused by a slowly decaying capitalism. If the Dems "wise up" and run a Keynesian in the future, they could right the ship and pose an actual threat, but they won't.
Nah the Keynesian approach only worked because WWII opened up the world market and the military industrial complex so the US could utilize anti-cyclic inflationary policies to deal with crises and expand the labor aristocracy. Then stagflation happened so the neolibs gutted safety nets to counter balance the anti-cyclic inflationary effect of deficit spending through the military. Now we're kinda fucked in any direction, there's no unlimited market without endless war, and we don't produce enough Value domestically due to dependence on the global proletariat. A hard divergence from neoliberalism towards Keynesianism will probably cause hyperinflation, capital flight (unless we're the last neolibs in town), and mass proletarianization faster than the current course because they've stayed deficit spending for a long time and a mass increase in spending, which would have to be huge considering our history of deficit spending, in order to stimulate aggregate demand will certainly end up largely and quickly amortized in fixed capital for the economic behemoths and in general we see rising organic composition of Capital and shrinking transitory classes
Hey fair enough, but I gotta ask, do you think this all would have happened if Bernie would have won?
My instinct says "no cause the legislature is still almost entirely neolibs who wouldn't want to work with him" but I don't feel like that answers the whole thing
He'd forsure be neutered and cause capital flight. If he tried to implement a lot of what he promised he'd have to fight off the bourgeois pissed about falling profits and inflation. If he did get the new deal sort of stuff passed through political means without being able to control capital in any way, it would probably be ruinous and invite a lot of reaction imo. I mean the Neolibs are still fairly Keynesian in terms of deficit spending, the primary tool of Keynesianism, so really going even crazier with deficit spending relative to where we are now, even on good stuff like health care etc., seems like not an option. As much as MMT is supposedly voodoo witchcraft (and something I need to read about more), there is an assload of unrealized debt out there that is waiting to become a huge issue (it already is, look at the zombie firms). Unless by some miracle Bernie just went all Allende and ruled through executive decree and started nationalizing shit. Still that didn't end well for Allende
In general I agree with you though, the Neolibs would've gutted the shit out of anything he wanted. Plus it's not like I'm an expert on economics I'm just trying to use some of the shit I've read.
Doesn't matter. The structural forces of capitalism are drawing the USA and China into competition and opposition, and China represents a rising threat to American global hegemony that cannot be ignored. The anti-China stance is a bipartisan consensus. Individuals in certain positions do not matter because the causes of this conflict are systemic.
Biden probably won't pursue silly protectionist policies like Trump, but will pursue regional free trade agreements aimed at containing China and stripping its economic options in the region as the TPP was an attempt at doing. Both will pursue policies aimed at banning threatening Chinese tech exports like Huawei's 5G.
But the response from Biden vs Trump will have differences in strategy, which must be worth considering. Unless you believe them to be functionally identical.
It sounds like Trump's policies provoke China into a quicker adaptation against US retaliatory tariffs, while Biden's strategy might be more effective in slowing their progress internationally.
I think that the differences between their approaches are dwarfed by the internal instability caused by a slowly decaying capitalism. If the Dems "wise up" and run a Keynesian in the future, they could right the ship and pose an actual threat, but they won't.
Nah the Keynesian approach only worked because WWII opened up the world market and the military industrial complex so the US could utilize anti-cyclic inflationary policies to deal with crises and expand the labor aristocracy. Then stagflation happened so the neolibs gutted safety nets to counter balance the anti-cyclic inflationary effect of deficit spending through the military. Now we're kinda fucked in any direction, there's no unlimited market without endless war, and we don't produce enough Value domestically due to dependence on the global proletariat. A hard divergence from neoliberalism towards Keynesianism will probably cause hyperinflation, capital flight (unless we're the last neolibs in town), and mass proletarianization faster than the current course because they've stayed deficit spending for a long time and a mass increase in spending, which would have to be huge considering our history of deficit spending, in order to stimulate aggregate demand will certainly end up largely and quickly amortized in fixed capital for the economic behemoths and in general we see rising organic composition of Capital and shrinking transitory classes
Hey fair enough, but I gotta ask, do you think this all would have happened if Bernie would have won?
My instinct says "no cause the legislature is still almost entirely neolibs who wouldn't want to work with him" but I don't feel like that answers the whole thing
He'd forsure be neutered and cause capital flight. If he tried to implement a lot of what he promised he'd have to fight off the bourgeois pissed about falling profits and inflation. If he did get the new deal sort of stuff passed through political means without being able to control capital in any way, it would probably be ruinous and invite a lot of reaction imo. I mean the Neolibs are still fairly Keynesian in terms of deficit spending, the primary tool of Keynesianism, so really going even crazier with deficit spending relative to where we are now, even on good stuff like health care etc., seems like not an option. As much as MMT is supposedly voodoo witchcraft (and something I need to read about more), there is an assload of unrealized debt out there that is waiting to become a huge issue (it already is, look at the zombie firms). Unless by some miracle Bernie just went all Allende and ruled through executive decree and started nationalizing shit. Still that didn't end well for Allende
In general I agree with you though, the Neolibs would've gutted the shit out of anything he wanted. Plus it's not like I'm an expert on economics I'm just trying to use some of the shit I've read.