I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that that fucking terrorist Stephen Miller is already suggesting convenient locations to 'test' nukes, where they would be upwind from blue city citizens.
On the plus side, maybe "The Daily Wire" will produce a remake of "The Conqueror".
Basically, he's made it his mission to undo any kind of progress. This seems to appeal to supporters who are convinced we've been degenerating since the 1950's.
We actually have been degenerating economically. Inflation has steadily increased since the 1950's but has been offset by a growing economy propped up by continuous population growth supported by immigration. The current administration has, in less than a year, removed immigration from the equation and initiated the process of stagnating economic growth. Our declining population, coupled with our massive concentration of wealth, will result in uncontrol able inflation. Cities will die while rural communities survive. That is assuming there are survivors.
Not sure I agree with this last statement. Rural economies have been dying slowly and sometimes rapidly for a long time in the USA. The stated purpose of the trade war is to make US industry come back, but we know it won't work.... I think many rural communities will die faster than cities.
Based on what rationale? I live in a rural red state and I'm having trouble envisioning how they would do better than cities under runaway inflation or any other stress. There are so few resources for people, especially as the GOP works to restrict criteria for federal aid. The sparse population (trending old) and distances between people means there's no way to concentrate services to reach enough of the population to be cost effective. For instance, more and more hospitals are closing down, which means doctors and many nurses and med tech employees simply leave the areas. Local businesses lose revenue, and there is yet another financial contraction. Rinse and repeat for every other business that closes.
Yeah, I can't see that happening. There is nothing in rural communities to draw people back. There's nothing to do here.
Apparently Trump now thinks that he's had a major hand in developing quantum computing, artificial intelligence and fusion power. Without ever learning even the basics of any of these technologies.
Why do you think rural communities are more sustainable in a collapsing economy? Cities benefit a lot from the economics of scale. A lot of basic infrastructure such as package/mail delivery has to be subsidized for rural areas much more heavily than cities.
evanhurst.substack.com
www.kenklippenstein.com
I'm talking about big, giant, cities that require daily imports of food, fresh water, and such to survive. Smaller urban areas, sizable towns, offer necessary infrastructure and opportunities that are not available in small towns and community centers yes. But rural spaces are where we grow food and dispose of waste. The largest "cities" in Alabama house a few hundred-thousand each and it will be challenging for surrounding farms and ranches to supply them, and remove the refuse, when it comes to that.
I think your reasoning would have been spot on over a century ago when rural towns were more self sufficient and cities were anything but. But I think int he modern economy basically EVERY town or village or city has to import a lot of goods and services that modern people are used to. Many rural towns don't have farms at all and if they do, it's often just a monocrop that they can't really live off of at all without the ability to sell it to other places. Now, practically every rural town is dependent on subsidized imports of basically everything like cities are, except they benefit a lot less from economics of scale.
Nothing says, "I have an enormous wang" like ordering nuclear testing to resume.
