What seems ridiculous about it? Aggressive expansion of presidential power. A compliant judiciary that just handed the president immunity while in office. Constant comments about not having elections 'next time around'. Erosion of first amendment rights. Concentrated media ownership. Constant outright lies while in office.
He is giving many good reasons to be anxious or concerned. Are these normal behaviors? Is his conduct likely to weaken our institutions, rather then strengthen them?
Europe is far more dependent on oil for industry and manufacturing than for simply transport. The high energy prices are killing the German manufacturing sector, while cheap Chinese imports will crush the domestic auto industry.
Terrible double blow that is enabling far right politics and populism.
> Europe is far more dependent on oil for industry and manufacturing than for simply transport.
If you take personal vehicle transport needs out, they still need oil yes, but a lot less. They also have plenty of resources (e.g. Norwegian Hydro, French Nuclear, even German coal) that they can bring to bear on energy pricing.
China is really smart for pushing themselves off of oil dependence. Yes, someone on the spectrum will mention that they still need some oil, but needing a lot less of it gives you so much more flexibility when it comes to geopolitics.
As for German car manufacturers...I already drive a German EV (made in Germany as well) so I'm not sure what the big deal is about.
Long answer: no, oil is needed for the functioning of our society. Helping smooth price volatility is useful and valuable. On the other hand, BTC is not needed for our society to function, and so there is little to no value in managing prices of it. This appears to be an attempt to hedge against the collapse in the trust in the dollar.
> This appears to be an attempt to hedge against the collapse in the trust in the dollar.
Or maybe an attempt to accelerate a reduction of trust in the dollar? Any cryptocurrency in the strategic reserve is being purchase with dollars, which increases the number of dollars in circulation, and will also be directly inflationary (if it’s newly issued dollars) or increases the US debt (if those dollars are obtained by issuing debt, which classical macroeconomic theory suggests is also inflationary).
Maybe it's a good idea to have a currency that isn't being inflated and devalued all the time with every little thing the government does. Kind of gold. Maybe digital gold? I'll call it bitgold. Or what about bitcoin?
>inflation (which would make everyone even worse off than they already are)
Is this true though? Doesn't inflation just redistribute wealth rather than destroy it? We measure inflation through change in prices which are just a measure of supply and demand (dis)equilibrium, I thought.
Inflation concentrates wealth in those with the power to inflate. This is usually strictly worse for the economy because the power to inflate is rarely vested in people capable of effectively deploying that captured wealth as capital. If this destruction of capital exceeds the rate of capital formation then the necessary decline in investment will reliably erode the economy for everyone, except perhaps for those proximal to those with the power to inflate (see also: the Cantillon effect).
The cantillon effect is mostly a meme. If it was such a powerful explanatory device then how come nobody is talking about the inverse cantillon effect which is much stronger and caused the great depression? You know, the idea that price falls propagate through the economy. It would appear to be much more dangerous, since it can be conducted by anyone who is holding onto money and every successful attempt spurs on more imitators. Since the imitators are betting on the productivity of doing absolutely nothing, capital formation will cease until there is a shortage of capital and ... surprise, a forward cantillon effect occurs through "unhoarding". We somehow end up with a business cycle theory that actually makes sense compared to the Austrian economist one. A lot of them seem to think that the business cycle is some nefarious plot by central banks instead of a disruption in economic communication induced by market participants following their own interests.
Inflation benefits debtors, and hurts creditors. But if inflation is controlled and predictable, those contracts will price that in or renegotiate. On the long term, inflation has no real impact on the economy.
Uncontrolled, unpredictable inflation (40%)(Zimbabwe, Turkey) is the problem as it incurs more costs on updating prices and renegotiating contracts, which introduces severe distortions on the economy. But we're not anywhere near that.
What a hilariously American worldview: justice is only obtainable through a lawsuit, for everything by everyone.
I personally prefer the British legal tradition. Np system is perfect, and many are actively decaying, but to posit that rapid and cheap lawsuits are the only medicine for what ails our society sounds...incomplete...at best.
The word "lawsuit" is saddled with a lot of baggage. If you remove the baggage, and leave only the essence of "making an accusation with evidence to be decided by a disinterested 3rd party", I fail to see how you can object to them. As I lay out (in some detail) lawsuits are badly broken, and yet its the primary mechanism we get to resolve disputes in the court system. If you have an alternative, I'd like to hear it.
He is giving many good reasons to be anxious or concerned. Are these normal behaviors? Is his conduct likely to weaken our institutions, rather then strengthen them?