Thanks for the response!
I don’t think open conflict is likely between the “reds” and the “blues”, but I would say that any such conflict would at least have an economic component either exclusively or in tandem to armed conflict. It would be interesting to see the economic Nash equilibrium of such a conflict.
I don’t think it will go between people themselves, at least not on a large scale, either. So I’m with you on that. The scenario I’m gaming in the article is (opposition) vs (authority).
I’d love to see you or someone else take a stab at the economic angle. If you publish something, tag me so I’ll see it.
Russia had a trifling investment in social media to have major say in the ultimate deployment of US forces from South Korea to Syria.
I’m not convinced of the “Russian Social Media Manipulation” narrative.
- I don’t think the trolls had much if any effect:
5 Reasons Not to Feed the Russian Troll Hysteria
Federal prosecutors have filed charges against 13 Russians who allegedly sought to "sow discord in the U.S. political…
2. The effect they did have was likely due to political donations, not social media, and those were flowing to both teams. Completely yielding the space that Russian donations may have flowed to Trump, there’s also this:
Russia Scandal Befalls Two Brothers: John and Tony Podesta
WASHINGTON - One is a rail-thin liberal idealist who spent his career in government, on campaigns and at think tanks…
As well as Bill getting paid a half a million dollars to speak to an empty room after ye olde nuke deal:
Bill Clinton sought State's permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium…
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department…
If the Russians influenced the election, in my opinion, it was probably to make sure to buy off both sides. Which itself is really just a manifestation of an overall deeper problem about the link between money and influence in Washington.
The current tariffs via China, Europe, and Canada target red states/counties disproportionately. The economic element is significant, will be the first thing felt by most people, and doesn’t receive enough coverage.
I’m a free market guy, so I think any tariff is dumb and I think the economists I’ve read seem to agree on that front. But the over-arching result of tariffs is honestly hard to predict. A net loss to the overall economy, sure, but which bits get punched the hardest are going to be determined, at least in part, on which parts the other countries punch back on.
China in particular stands to lose a lot by imposing any kind of blanket embargo on the US. Their retaliation moves are probably going to be culturally weighted to save face and measured to be proportional. I’m no expert on that though.