SeeingRed [he/him]

It’s so frustrating to read anything about IMF loans because most summaries are all euphemistic economic jargon. Then you read past the summary and while the material is still opaque, they’ll have snippets where they explain in plain language what they want.

I assume this is an attempt to re-shore manufacturing, especially if as many of us expect, many countries choose to take the tarrif hit so that they can keep trading in their own currency between eachother.

It’s a strategic bet, bring home some manufacturing while hurting those who defy the empire. It’ll certainly reduce the availability of certain goods in the US as countries choose other markets. This likely would help to encourage some level of reshoring, or at least increase pressure from the ruling class to force more coups of other countries to force them back onto the dollar system.

Whether this will backfire or not will is something that is very hard to predict.

This is quite the change. I’m excited to see how it plays out. The one thing that bothers me is that the recommendations of the employee councils are not binding, but it’s far better than not having it at all. Hopefully in practice any company that goes against employee desires will be penalized in some tangible way.

The way I see it is that at least 4% of the workforce will have a say in how the companies are run, and those 4% will be elected by the other 95%. Good law, will probably be popular.

There will definitely be a need to have significant amounts of resource (food and other agricultural products) stock piling as the climate becomes more unpredictable and variable. Otherwise famines will be far more common.

Ultimately it’ll mean analyzing the conditions as they currently exist and will exist in the coming decades and having realistic plans based on local and global conditions.

Citys, regions, countries, will need to look at what is currently lacking in their response and put in the resources to address the deficiencies. This could include things like cold/hot shelters, flood mitigation infrastructure, massive food storage infrastructure, backup sources for water and energy supply.

For a resource perspective, we would need improvement to efficiency (including removal of capitalist incentives for making products that are not needed and over marketing them for the sake of profit, obviously), and retrofitting cities for lower overall energy and resource use. Having the ability to run a city on less means the storage and buffers needed in the event of an emergency are much smaller.

It was always projection. It’s honestly comical how often that is the case.

So 6 years to project start. Then just a few more years for completion. All in we are looking to a decade out for project completion +/- a few years.

Meanwhile, in Canada they can’t even get a timeline or funding for a single line on the most obvious corridor. And the second most obvious corridor has no timelines, and is only a study of feasibility at this time.

Definitely interesting to see. I’d be curious how this compares to the total wheat trade between the two countries and other trading partners, how that’s changing over time, and why it’s specifically happening now. Is this due to old agreements being unnecessary due to increased domestic production? Is this due to the global market favouring wheat purchases from other countries? Is there just less demand due to some other reason? There is the throwaway line about China being able to source from others, but no indication of who or why.

Obviously this is just Bloomberg so they’re not going to dig into these sorts of things as they only care about the changes in prices for the sake of investors.