It is interesting that when Facebook and Twitter are confronted over some censorship they will often talk about needing to be more transparent over and over and over and over...
It isn't just getting kicked off the platform that you should worry about. You have zero control of long term pricing. Developers sometimes even develop without doing any math on what the services they are using cost in year one. Ask people how often they have already had to go back and rework code and shutdown servers because the bills coming in were out of control. The myth that you can just migrate if costs go crazy is completely nuts.
Point taken but the oil example isn't the best example on imports as we have since about 2010 really dropped imports with Obama's "All of the above" energy strategy which included opening the Arctic to drilling twice. Here is an example article on the subject: ...U.S. Exports More Petroleum Than It Imports In September and October
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/11/26/making-hi...
Oil is a great example because oil is truly a global commodity. The demand for oil exists from all 196 countries of the world.
If USD devalues too much (but is still reserve currency), other countries will become richer aka, they can buy more dollars for fewer of their own fiats. Which means they can import more oil by converting more and more of their fiat to dollars. Which means demand for oil internationally will go up while supply remains about the same, causing price of oil to go up, regardless of where it is produced.
If USD devalues and other countries decide to abandon the dollar for trade in favor of say Oil-coin, US will lose access to international oil until it "earns" oil-coin somehow. How does America earn oil-coin? By exporting something. Since America can produce so much oil, the producers will try to export oil for oil-coin. Which means increased global demand and thus rising prices again.
US could shut down all exports of oil and only use it domestically and shun oil-coin entirely. But this means that
a. US can't import other things because of lack of oil-coin. So we will suddenly have severe shortages. Oh a bad disease in one year caused all potatoes in America to die? Tough luck sustaining all the food processing and chips companies. They can't do a stop gap import potatoes since we don't have any oil-coin. You can expand this experiment to all kinds of things such as stent-valves, rubber for tires, coffee. Our rich lives are truly there because other countries are working for it.
b. US energy supplies will be limited by domestic production and domestic supply and demand characteristics. Oh, we have such a great economic boom that increased oil demand but a few oil wells are down for repairs a few quarters? Boom, spike in oil prices again despite being self-sufficient. Another recession beckons since industries can't function with such high oil prices.
This globalization thing is not very simple. It may have caused a lot of grief, but it's also a very good distributed system that's preventing us from going back to shortages like medieval times. We're not dying just because there's a 2-3 year span of famine any longer because there's always somewhere else to get it from.
A 10% drop in currency would in your example, assuming no cost of shipping oil, US would go from 3.00 to 3.30 at 20% drop would mean 3.60 and even a US currency drop of 40% only gets you to $4.20. The data on trade indicates that countries that cheat on trade have epic growth rates and countries that do the "free trade" have close to zero growth or even declines. The data indicates local manufacturing has synergistic effects that massively outweigh the additional costs to consumers. See economist Ha-Joon Chang.
I wish prices were directly proportional to value of currency. But it isn't.
In the oil price example, drop in value of USD could cause prices of oil to increase (by how much? We don't know. There are entire commodities industries who hire quants to figure this out every day).
Assuming price of oil increases by 10%, price of chicken feed would increase by a%, causing an increase in price of chicken by b%, causing an increase in price of shipping chicken from farm to factory by 10%+a%+b%, the factory whose workers need higher wages now (by a total of c%) because of higher cost of living, factory will now have to sell their chicken for 10%+a%+b%+c% to a shipper who will need to pay another 10% who will pass this cost on to McDonalds who will have to pay 10+a+b+c+10 to get a chicken patty.
The dollar menu suddenly become a $5 menu.
As contrived as this example may sound, this is the reality in many "emerging" markets and smaller developed markets. We are so oblivious to real inflation and price fluctuations simply because we are used to getting stuff for cheap from whereever it is available because we can import any time. No shortages for any industry or any consumers here.
While I agree that having healthy domestic manufacturing is good, we need to be careful what we wish for because losing the reserve currency status is the last option of them all. It's truly devastating and you only need ask United Kingdom and how they lived for decades with rationing in order to pay debts and earn foreign reserves.
The link below is on historical gas prices. Also include a link on US dollar to Euro. Depending on the state we are currently at about 2.50 and have been over 3.50. The dollar menu going to 5 because of a 10% or 20% drop in currency doesn't seem likely. We, and also other countries, can have fairly big currency changes without much internal inflation or deflation(can depend on country size). A number of countries have actually deliberately devalued their currency in order to encourage growth. The question that is more interesting is can we lose high productively jobs(manufacturing...) and still keep high standards of living. The data indicates we cannot.
Those links don't even go to the dates of US defaults in 70s and 30s.
> We, and also other countries, can have fairly big currency changes without much internal inflation or deflation(can depend on country size). A number of countries have actually deliberately devalued their currency in order to encourage growth.
This is all applicable to the reserve currency or massively exporting countries. Not to importing countries, which the US is. The US cannot stop importing without causing massing inflation at the retail counter. No more $10 t-shirts and $100 sport shoes if they are made here.
I would recommend reading the article to truly understand how subsidized our lifestyle is.
The US would benefit from a weaker dollar as it would protect what remains of our manufacturing base and also act as an export subsidy. Currency valuation, and in particular currency manipulation, is equivalent to a tariff or an export subsidy depending on which side of it you are on. Yes people like to pretend that if something goes up in cost 20 percent because of currency change that is somehow normal but slap a 10 percent tariff on something and that is completely different.
> The US would benefit from a weaker dollar as it would protect what remains of our manufacturing base
At equilibrium, a weaker or stronger dollar doesn't affect exports, it's just an exchange rate. What can affect exports is a weakening dollar.
In an inflationary disequilibrium, exports increase only insofar as foreign consumers are able to purchase domestic goods before those goods' prices have adjusted to inflation. In other words, exporters are unwittingly selling their goods for a lower price.
Absent inflation, exporters could have chosen to increase exports by intentionally lowering their prices. That they didn't suggests something about their marginal costs.
With inflation, the exporter has a similar benefit over its suppliers as the foreign consumer has over the exporter, namely buying goods with new money before prices have adjusted. As such, the exporter's suppliers are also unwittingly selling their goods for a lower price.
Whether this is beneficial depends on where one is positioned as new money propagates through the economy. Banks get it first, then to their borrowers, other financial institutions, and so on. The losers are those at the tail-end, who face higher costs but have not yet had their own prices bid up with new money: wage workers, those on a fixed income, etc.
The net effect of all this price manipulation is a wealth transfer from those who receive the new money later to those who receive it earlier.
> currency manipulation, is equivalent to a tariff or an export subsidy
While an export subsidy can also increase the quantity of exports, the larger economic impact of intentionally weakening the currency through inflation is very different.
So given 68 million USA twitter users, if this rate continues, it wouldn't take long to get half the USA switched over. I am assuming most of the new users are USA. I suspect a fair number will use both systems for awhile. There could also be events like say a famous person moving over or being forced to move over that could result in even higher switching rates.
That assumes people use Twitter solely for politics. It's a social media app, people are on there to look at animal videos, celebrity gossip, answer dumb polls etc.
Parler's growth is happening directly due to the impact of the election, and Twitter adding disclaimers to claims of ballot interference. It won't continue at this rate, because besides political kinship, there is nothing there for users to do. Nobody enjoys the political zones of Twitter, unless they're 'dunking' on the opposition. On Parler, there is no opposition.
Funny story: I worked at a place which spent millions annually with Oracle. They had a couple hours downtime every day because they couldn’t afford the online backup product.
This was an Ivy League university with an endowment in the tens of billions.
That may be the case now but it was either different back then or neither their Oracle-trained DBAs nor their Oracle consultants was aware of it.
I was working with an even worse Oracle product (Hyperion) which had a convoluted homegrown script restarting all of the services on a number of servers to work around their inability to reliably handle database connection failures lasting more than a short interval. Before do that, they’d tried to get rid of the backup window but were told that wasn’t possible unless they could come up with a large amount of money for the license.
I suspect it is more company/occupation specific. High paying white collar workers are probably much more likely to be able to stay home. Low pay workers, likely have much less vacation benefits and all and must come to work. Me specifically I have over enough PTO with no prior vacation commitments that a week off it not a problem.
"High paying white collar workers" or even mediocre paid white collar workers are more likely to be working from home when sick.
I have never had a job where I felt comfortable and able to take a sick day because I had "just" a cold, but since I've had an office job where working from home was allowed, I would also not feel comfortable coming into the office sick.
