What will eventually decide this war will most likely be domestic American politics. The Europeans' apparent line of thinking makes sense as far as I can see: Given that the American economy is already tanking without coutertariffs, then lengthen the timespan where he has trouble finding a feasible fescapegoat. We (the EU) are not using any options, and since public opinion here is staunchly against Trump, there will invariably be severe couter-tariffs in a couple of weeks at the latest.
Right, I've corrected "article" into "opinion piece".
Please re-read: It's not about the American opposition, but about the stance the EU/members are apparently taking with regard to how and when to enact counter-tariffs.
Thanks, this is the first time I hear of this.
I can fully understand the sentiment behind "told you so" and calling out Trump/Republican voters for wanting to throw others under the bus. Still, you're going to have to build as powerful a coalition against the Republican administration as you can, and for many districts this will eventually require a good number of former MAGA people. It may feel shitty, but the most strategic thing (including for the purpose of helping the most oppressed) is to find a way so that potential supporters who voted red in 2024 won't be quiet 2026 and 2028 because of shame.
If you don't come around to this, two years down the road I would have grounds for saying "told you so" to you – and I'd hate me for it, because it would mean that I haven't communicated this crucial point effectively enough. Much love from Germany.
Here you can also watch video of Murphy giving essentially the same points (may require a BlueSky account): https://bsky.app/profile/oknotle.bsky.social/post/3llxgvgztjk2u
One can of course always argue over what percentile makes you which class (and to to what degree percentiles are useful for this question in the first place).
As for the question of influence, Piketty for example, while calling the top 10% the "upper class", calls the top 1% the "ruling class", which seems like a decent way to undercore this point.
Should one even share such statements by him, and be it just in the form of an article reporting critically on them? We know already that he is going to say deranged things and plain lies 24/7. So it's probably better to keep our feeds mostly free from his bullshit so that we can focus on learning useful information and growing the resistance.
Inverting things, I've recently begun wondering whether a good way to subvert the pervasive ideology of "the super-rich are super-rich because they are geniuses, so it's fair" is by increasing the visibility of mathematicians and physicists, so that people be exposed more often to actual off-the-charts intelligence.
This can still degenerate into undue IQ worship at times, but at least the ego trips of scientists tend to take much more benign forms than those of billionaires, generally speaking.
More broadly, everyone can participate in this, simply by using terms like "intelligence" and "genius" in reference to pre-eminent individuals involved in any endeavor other than business and tech (the fact that these two have become the only fields where people unironically talk of geniuses actually is high up on the list of dystopian feature of our time).
These comparisons are always a bit iffy though. E.g. one has to know whether they correct for purchasing power.