Reading the actual article instead of just the headline, here’s a summary of their arguments. There are multiple powder keg situations around the world that are either exploding or simmering. Iran and its proxies, Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan. They could all turn into an interconnected war at any moment. Yet markets, which supposedly factor in these possibilities, are still very high.
What this is not saying is that another world war would be secondary to investor yields. They make that explicit:
This scenario would of course place financial damage a long way down the list of horrors.
Yeah I’m not seeing the outrage on this one. It’s The Economist. They discuss the economy. If Animals Monthly did a piece on the conflict, I’d expect it to be pretty focused on the impact to animals, and I don’t think that means they’re minimizing the humanitarian aspects of the conflict.
The Economist is also known for attempts at “wit” in some of their headlines. The title is surely riding the line of satire intentionally.
I really want a prescription to Animals Monthly. That’s sounds fucking sick. I love animals. I love months. Edit:don’t you dare correct me. This ain’t fucking Reddit.
Holy shit. I forgot all about zoo books. I’m 38. I remember those goddamn things and they were just as awesome in person as they were on the infomercials
Eat three elephants and one snake daily. If you’re still getting stomachaches, call me.
I’d rather deal with my hemorrhoids than eat an elephant, you monster.
*subscription 🤓
Goddamnit!
😎
So the saving sentence is how far below where your average executive stopped reading?
This scenario would of course place financial damage a long way down the list of horrors.
Pathetic. Where is the bootstraps, can do attitude? Risks are just opportunity with thorns! or in this case nuclear warheads.
Don’t confuse The Economist for dipshit right wingers in the US. They’re center-right Brits, which are their own breed. Not that I agree with them all the time, mind you.
Having had a subscription to it for a decade, I would say they’re hardcore neolibs, which would make them straight Rightwing (maybe even Hard Right) in an economic sense, though liberal when it comes to non-economic subjects since any true neoliberal couldn’t care less about things like people’s sexual orientation.
Even though the Overtoon Window in the UK is a lot more to the Right than it used to be and more than most of Continental Europe, it hasn’t lead to the kind of raging near-theocratic autoritarianism in the moral space that you see in the US (there is some of it but not anywhere as extreme: for example being anti-immigrant is common on the rightmost segment in the UK but being anti-LGBT is not) - the shift to the Right is mainly about how resources are distributed in society and the “moralism” angles you see more commonly are things like spreading the idea that the Poor are just lazy to justify reductions in the Social Safety Net and to further reinforce the idea that Wealth is the product of merit (which is quite funny given that the UK has the lowest Social Mobility in Europe, hence there wealth is mainly the product of luck of birth)
Website called “The Economist” talks about the economy.
Lemmy.ml users: shocked-Pikachu-face
i was shocked when I found out that The New York Times wasn’t a clock and watch fan forum for New Yorkers.
I’m not shocked by the article focusing on trade. It’s just the tone it has when discussing global nuclear war is a little bit too much on the blasé side for me.
Idk it’s kinda like asking “What does global nuclear Armageddon mean for your investment portfolio?”
They’re not wrong though.
If China attacks Taiwan, the first thing I’ll do is to buy a high end graphics card and CPU. These parts will be impossible to buy for at least a decade. (should Taiwan be actually occupied)
As a German it’s also one more reason to hate Hitler. Supposedly he liked Germans. But what he actually did was fuck Germany so hard, we would not recover for decades. Just imagine the advancements if Europe were not destroyed in WW2! So much value was lost. Most importantly the knowledge of people who died or were forced to flee.
I don’t know if it’s a decade, aren’t new next-gen (or maybe it was next-next gen) foundries being built in Europe and the US? The actual machines to make the machines that make the hardware is made in Europe IIRC.
Edit: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/eu-news-2022-release.html cutting edge (at their time) Intel foundries plan to come online in 4 years in Germany.
This is a great reminder regarding class: the rich do not die in the wars. They can only lose a bit of money.
They have died in wars, they can again.
Europe had been moving towards the slaughterhouse for years, and by 1914 a conflict was all but inevitable—that, at least, is the argument often made in hindsight. Yet at the time, as Niall Ferguson, a historian, noted in a paper published in 2008, it did not feel that way to investors. For them, the first world war came as a shock. Until the week before it erupted, prices in the bond, currency and money markets barely budged. Then all hell broke loose. “The City has seen in a flash the meaning of war,” wrote this newspaper on August 1st 1914.
Apart from this, nothing in the article is worth reading.
Investors have their heads buried in there arses or rather in the charts and balance sheets. I think they delude themselves into believing that by buying selling what essentially amounts to promises, they think they are doing important work.
The only reason all that industry exists is because the government keeps devaluing and taxing our savings. The day we create an asset with easy transactions and that doesn’t devalue, with ease of exchange, they’ll be out on the street.
The Economist is known for being over-the-top dry almost to the point of humor when talking of horrible thing and how they affect economy.
as he should have
fucking nailing it 100 years out from the grave, GOAT
If anybody needed further proof that capitalism leads to brain rot, this is it.
It would mean permanent disruption of asset integrity, a new kind of revenue flow where the only thing that matters is your physical access to scarce freshwater, and adjusting to market conditions where you are being physically welded to the hood of a car owned by the warlord leader of a gang of what will be known as “mega cannibals”.
…Just like I assume the article in The Economist says.
Horde bottlecaps now, advises strange man with poor skin.
There is an archive link to the article. If you want to say something smart, read that. Otherwise, just assume that you’re going to say something uninformed.
If this is the kind of smart thing I’ll be saying after reading the article I’ll just assume that I’m going to say something uninformed, thank you very much. I would expect this kind of casual aggression from our future mega cannibal overlords that I am still sure the article speaks about at length, but not from a new internet friend and “thread buddy” like you.
stfu liberal
I have no words left to describe what I think of this
The word of the day is jihad
Yes, I remember the emotional end to the directors cut of Planet of the Apes well, in which Charlton Heston bemoans the loss of value in his portfolio.
I don’t have anything witty to say.
Fuck the oinkers, everything the WASPs accuse the Jews of is a confession.
One could imagine that already with all the human loss we have lost some technology maybe for decades. Like some of those fallen to the hands of ruzzia could have been the only ones in the world who understood a particular scientific problem. There’s probably technological loss already that will affect the world.
It’s impossible to even guess at the progress that’s been lost over millennia because of all the needless fighting that humanity perpetuates.
It’s sad, really.
Could financial markets once again be underpricing the risk of a global conflict? In the nightmare scenario, the descent into a third world war began two years ago, as Russian troops massed on the Ukrainian border.
These idiots forgot Russia annexed Crimea a decade ago.
Also that Ukraine started shelling Donbass at about that time
And at the time they moved fast enough and the Ukrainian government was inept and the military untrained and underequipped to do anything about it. That’s why the status quo was accepted like that.
In the first days of the Ukraine war a lot of western leaders were rather sceptical of Ukraines chance to defend itself and more than happy to write them off and accept a new order, if it doesn’t interfere with the Russia business.
Something similiar can also be seen from the US in WW2, were before Pearl Harbor it seemed the US was mostly accepting and seeing how to deal with a new world order, with Europe under Nazi control.
To them the danger never arises from any status quo or a quick change of status. Only a continued long lasting changing process is what they fear and get troubled by.
