Ford has an ad where they diss keynote addresses and claim only the building of things matters.
Building and executing is highly critical but if that was all that mattered then the future will be China’s. China is building more cars than the USA. China is building 24 million cars per year versus 18 million for the USA.
The first part of the Ford ad says the future is not created in a keynote address. However, Steve Jobs did announce the result of his vision of the iPhone with the realized execution of years of work and design and engineering in several critical keynotes.
Elon Musk and Tesla are delivering on the Keynote that introduced the Model 3 in 2016. Tesla model 3 is the top selling car model by revenue.
The Tesla Model S has the most large luxury car sales. It has more sales than the Mercedes S-Class and Porsche Panamera combined.
Ford has a $37 billion market value.
Tesla has a $56 billion market value.
Apple is at $1.03 trillion market value.
Rocket company rivals are being crushed by SpaceX
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Well… as Tesla, Ford, and Apple all have significant manufacturing concerns in China; China had better get off the saber rattling against us. There is a growing movement of Americans who are applying logic to China. And that would be, “Why should we fund the Chinese military by allowing our companies to do business there. Many Americans want these companies to be forced to close out in China, or… completely divest in America. The Hedge Funds and Fortune 500 might get hurt, but the average American would gladly embrace a “Build it here sell it here” economic model.
Nobody said anything about reducing consumption. You are living in some Keynesiantard-Globalist textbook. Not the real world.
No. I was speaking of the present and then the future. Tariffs are about the present.”Trade wars are an exercise in cutting your nose off to spite your face. “Funny. Especially how every other export driven economy has been waging de facto trade war against the US for 40 years now. We let them get away with it. No, no longer.”We’re all collectively better off through comparative advantage.”Cheap labor & currency manipulation never fell under ‘comparative advantage’. Read up on the topic.
Nobody said anything about reducing consumption.
You are living in some Keynesiantard-Globalist textbook. Not the real world.
No. I was speaking of the present and then the future. Tariffs are about the present.
“Trade wars are an exercise in cutting your nose off to spite your face. ”
Funny. Especially how every other export driven economy has been waging de facto trade war against the US for 40 years now. We let them get away with it. No, no longer.
“We’re all collectively better off through comparative advantage.”
Cheap labor & currency manipulation never fell under ‘comparative advantage’. Read up on the topic.
Peter Zeihan has a LOT of fascinating information/projections regarding near term evolution of geo-politics – surprising, scary, thought-provoking, sometimes even reassuring. He’s also fairly funny and easy to follow – worth a look IMO.
If you want to curb consumption through higher prices, better to do it through some Pigouvian taxes like carbon or pollution taxes. The approach you’re talking about of reducing consumption through increased economic friction and inefficiency is likely to be worse for the environment, not better.
To say there will be no impact is another way of saying the tariffs won’t do anything. In which case, why engage in them at all? You can’t have it both ways.Trade wars are an exercise in cutting your nose off to spite your face. We’re all collectively better off through comparative advantage.
Peter Zeihan has a LOT of fascinating information/projections regarding near term evolution of geo-politics – surprising, scary, thought-provoking, sometimes even reassuring. He’s also fairly funny and easy to follow – worth a look IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV71L2FtrJM
This is what China is doing in the SCS:Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy or salami attacks,[1] is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated “slice by slice” until one realizes (too late) that it is gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the ‘sliced’ sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.
that Japan is quite a bit stronger than most people assume.”One of the reasons for that is Japan years ago displaced the UK in Navy size, too. And that is just size: Capability and experience, it eclipses China & Russia except when it comes to nuclear submarines.Of course, if Japan is ever to be in a war with China, it will have to become a nuclear power first. Else it will once again be a non-nuclear power fighting a nuclear one. We all know what happened the last time that occurred. 🙂
Heck yeah. I try my best to not waste anything and consume as little as possible, and I live in Texas where everything is supposed to be bigger and more consumable (that’s just a fun little jab and can be left alone lol). Maybe we can consume less, build UP rather than OUT, and possibly even replenish the numbers of fluffy…um..fluf…. I don’t remember what you called wildlife, but it was great, and my phone won’t scroll up for me to view it. Replenish the numbers of fluffy wuffy alligatorffes and zebrillas snd chimpazmanian devils and bumbleluffalos. … And wasps. Wasps protect us from spidermonkeys. God, this wine! Anyway:I agree. I don’t really get into right or left, etc. I have a definite working understanding of politics. There’s something to be said for China being able to say, “We’re going to build ” and doing it without having to cut through red tape. But it’s also bad, because people can end up suffering when you force them to commit to projects that might upend their lives. I know that’s a SEVERE dumbing down of how things work, though. I want to see large scale automation so that we can complete projects that don’t necessarily cause suffering. I think all sections of the globe could benefit from that. We just aren’t there quite yet. And I can see trade wars as possibly beneficial as long as they bring about global, necessary change.
No such thing will happen, in most cases.Because automation is going to bring home most manufacturing anyway. What it still can’t, can be offshored to nations cheaper than China, which now includes Vietnam and many Central American nations.
I think you make a fair — but one dimensional — point. I am NOT an ecosystem activist; I’m not a lıberal, a leftie; I deplore the kleptomania of socialism, I find virtually all popular theories of how AGW is going to ruin everything vapid and banal. YET…YET… I am definitely in agreement with those who champion the idea that The West (and especially Americans) basically consume too much. That for the benefit of the planet and all humanity (and sure, all the fuzzy-wuzzy’s, purple spotted gnat-catchers, zebra striped blowflies and rainbow fâhrting unicorns …) that we REALLY should be acting with transnational global responsibility. Think globally, act locally.Yah sure, it is a sound bite. But it is a good one. Just as in another NBF article I’ve been having a debate between Eripe and others regarding the false-ease with which one can pin the “failure” tail on the “its about race” donkey, and further in the end when kids grow up in lawless neighborhoods that they also then tend to lead troubled, lawless and scoff-law lives … just as noting that is not just a referendum on bad-apple neighborhoods, it is ALSO a referendum on inadequate, insufficient, impotent government law enforcement and educational objective attainment. OK, abstracting back to “Americans willing to take large real terms-of-pay cuts due to higher prices?”Cry me a river! How about “Americans could / should consume less, PERIOD.”Morever, living with less — a particularly pervasive European and Japanese ideal — is essentially key to resolving how the WHOLE of mankind is going to change our willful ways to guard our precious planet’s resources, lands, waterways and ecosystems. It really does take the “higher thinking” (and action) of people having righteous ideals in order to enact (and govern, and enforce) laws to leave the cheap-and-easy (and dirty, polluting, resource wasting) path and do things forward, differently.Right?So my answer is straight: Trade Wars? BRING IT ON. They’re decidedly not bad, especially since the Big Dragon has spent the last 40 years out-producing just about everyone, largely making cheap (in both the lack-of-quality and money senses) crâhp, selling it by the container SHIP to Europe, The Americas, Africa, most of Asia. And polluting LIKE HELL their waterways, our atmosphere, indirectly the oceans, directly their groundwater; mendacious to the core. There’d be NO upending of the Chinese Phenomenon in the next few decades. They’re entrenched. And just about every transnational business depends on their product flow. But times are a’changing. Therein is both the opportunity and the belt-tightening. Just saying,GoatGuy
If you want to curb consumption through higher prices, better to do it through some Pigouvian taxes like carbon or pollution taxes. The approach you’re talking about of reducing consumption through increased economic friction and inefficiency is likely to be worse for the environment, not better.
To say there will be no impact is another way of saying the tariffs won’t do anything. In which case, why engage in them at all? You can’t have it both ways.
Trade wars are an exercise in cutting your nose off to spite your face. We’re all collectively better off through comparative advantage.
If they are not willing to create a war in the South China Sea, then why the nine dash line and militarizing their man made islands? Why would that nine dash line include the near shore waters of other countries, poor countries who need access to their resources to pull their people out of poverty the way China did? These are not the actions of a country who is interested in peace.
Yes we are. We would rather do it now than later. Besides, the price increases would be temporary. Once the multinationals left China for other countries the prices would go back down again.
This is what China is doing in the SCS:
Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy or salami attacks,[1] is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated “slice by slice” until one realizes (too late) that it is gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the ‘sliced’ sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.
“that Japan is quite a bit stronger than most people assume.”
One of the reasons for that is Japan years ago displaced the UK in Navy size, too.
And that is just size: Capability and experience, it eclipses China & Russia except when it comes to nuclear submarines.
Of course, if Japan is ever to be in a war with China, it will have to become a nuclear power first. Else it will once again be a non-nuclear power fighting a nuclear one. We all know what happened the last time that occurred. 🙂
Heck yeah. I try my best to not waste anything and consume as little as possible, and I live in Texas where everything is supposed to be bigger and more consumable (that’s just a fun little jab and can be left alone lol).
Maybe we can consume less, build UP rather than OUT, and possibly even replenish the numbers of fluffy…um..fluf…. I don’t remember what you called wildlife, but it was great, and my phone won’t scroll up for me to view it. Replenish the numbers of fluffy wuffy alligatorffes and zebrillas snd chimpazmanian devils and bumbleluffalos. … And wasps. Wasps protect us from spidermonkeys. God, this wine! Anyway:
I agree. I don’t really get into right or left, etc. I have a definite working understanding of politics. There’s something to be said for China being able to say, “We’re going to build ” and doing it without having to cut through red tape. But it’s also bad, because people can end up suffering when you force them to commit to projects that might upend their lives. I know that’s a SEVERE dumbing down of how things work, though.
I want to see large scale automation so that we can complete projects that don’t necessarily cause suffering. I think all sections of the globe could benefit from that. We just aren’t there quite yet.
And I can see trade wars as possibly beneficial as long as they bring about global, necessary change.
No such thing will happen, in most cases.
Because automation is going to bring home most manufacturing anyway. What it still can’t, can be offshored to nations cheaper than China, which now includes Vietnam and many Central American nations.
I think you make a fair — but one dimensional — point.
I am NOT an ecosystem activist; I’m not a lıberal, a leftie; I deplore the kleptomania of socialism, I find virtually all popular theories of how AGW is going to ruin everything vapid and banal. YET…
YET… I am definitely in agreement with those who champion the idea that The West (and especially Americans) basically consume too much. That for the benefit of the planet and all humanity (and sure, all the fuzzy-wuzzy’s, purple spotted gnat-catchers, zebra striped blowflies and rainbow fâhrting unicorns …) that we REALLY should be acting with transnational global responsibility. Think globally, act locally.
Yah sure, it is a sound bite.
But it is a good one.
Just as in another NBF article I’ve been having a debate between Eripe and others regarding the false-ease with which one can pin the “failure” tail on the “its about race” donkey, and further in the end when kids grow up in lawless neighborhoods that they also then tend to lead troubled, lawless and scoff-law lives … just as noting that is not just a referendum on bad-apple neighborhoods, it is ALSO a referendum on inadequate, insufficient, impotent government law enforcement and educational objective attainment.
OK, abstracting back to “Americans willing to take large real terms-of-pay cuts due to higher prices?”
Cry me a river! How about “Americans could / should consume less, PERIOD.”
Morever, living with less — a particularly pervasive European and Japanese ideal — is essentially key to resolving how the WHOLE of mankind is going to change our willful ways to guard our precious planet’s resources, lands, waterways and ecosystems. It really does take the “higher thinking” (and action) of people having righteous ideals in order to enact (and govern, and enforce) laws to leave the cheap-and-easy (and dirty, polluting, resource wasting) path and do things forward, differently.
Right?
So my answer is straight: Trade Wars? BRING IT ON. They’re decidedly not bad, especially since the Big Dragon has spent the last 40 years out-producing just about everyone, largely making cheap (in both the lack-of-quality and money senses) crâhp, selling it by the container SHIP to Europe, The Americas, Africa, most of Asia. And polluting LIKE HELL their waterways, our atmosphere, indirectly the oceans, directly their groundwater; mendacious to the core.
There’d be NO upending of the Chinese Phenomenon in the next few decades. They’re entrenched. And just about every transnational business depends on their product flow. But times are a’changing. Therein is both the opportunity and the belt-tightening.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
If they are not willing to create a war in the South China Sea, then why the nine dash line and militarizing their man made islands? Why would that nine dash line include the near shore waters of other countries, poor countries who need access to their resources to pull their people out of poverty the way China did? These are not the actions of a country who is interested in peace.
Yes we are. We would rather do it now than later. Besides, the price increases would be temporary. Once the multinationals left China for other countries the prices would go back down again.
The US has 23 times as many aircraft carriers than China..”Your the type of person who calls any warship a Battleship because it has guns aren’t you.Yes the US has far more Carriers atm. However the Chinese are building new ones far faster than we are and far cheaper. The US can’t build anything fast anymore because we screwed up our ship building and our naval designs.”Plus China’s politics are traditionally directed inwards and they are always playing a very long game. “The Chinese have this thing. Whenever they feel they are strong enough and aren’t worrying about falling into chaos of fighting off hordes from the north and west then tend to look at those around them and say”….slave, barbarian…give me tribute or get invaded.
Are many Americans willing to take large real terms pay cuts due to higher prices? Look at how expensive iPhone is in Brazil.
China is of a lot less concern than US military lobbyists want you to believe. The US has 23 times as many aircraft carriers than China and it is worth noting that Japan is quite a bit stronger than most people assume. George Friedman thinks that Japan is able to project more power into the Asian pacific region than China can. Plus China’s politics are traditionally directed inwards and they are always playing a very long game. I don’t see them starting a war in the region unless something really drastic happens.
Well… as Tesla, Ford, and Apple all have significant manufacturing concerns in China; China had better get off the saber rattling against us. There is a growing movement of Americans who are applying logic to China. And that would be, “Why should we fund the Chinese military by allowing our companies to do business there. Many Americans want these companies to be forced to close out in China, or… completely divest in America. The Hedge Funds and Fortune 500 might get hurt, but the average American would gladly embrace a “Build it here sell it here” economic model.
“The US has 23 times as many aircraft carriers than China..”
Your the type of person who calls any warship a Battleship because it has guns aren’t you.
Yes the US has far more Carriers atm. However the Chinese are building new ones far faster than we are and far cheaper. The US can’t build anything fast anymore because we screwed up our ship building and our naval designs.
“Plus China’s politics are traditionally directed inwards and they are always playing a very long game. ”
The Chinese have this thing. Whenever they feel they are strong enough and aren’t worrying about falling into chaos of fighting off hordes from the north and west then tend to look at those around them and say”….slave, barbarian…give me tribute or get invaded.”
Are many Americans willing to take large real terms pay cuts due to higher prices? Look at how expensive iPhone is in Brazil.
China is of a lot less concern than US military lobbyists want you to believe. The US has 23 times as many aircraft carriers than China and it is worth noting that Japan is quite a bit stronger than most people assume. George Friedman thinks that Japan is able to project more power into the Asian pacific region than China can. Plus China’s politics are traditionally directed inwards and they are always playing a very long game. I don’t see them starting a war in the region unless something really drastic happens.
Well… as Tesla, Ford, and Apple all have significant manufacturing concerns in China; China had better get off the saber rattling against us. There is a growing movement of Americans who are applying logic to China. And that would be, “Why should we fund the Chinese military by allowing our companies to do business there. Many Americans want these companies to be forced to close out in China, or… completely divest in America. The Hedge Funds and Fortune 500 might get hurt, but the average American would gladly embrace a “Build it here sell it here” economic model.