"Well, we needed to acquiesce to fascism for our stock price" is not acceptable. Over and over and over we are told about how corporations are job creators and serve a valuable function in our society. We are told that having power distributed across corporations that are in competition with one another is a protection against tyranny.
I mean, to be fair, it did. There are other media personalities syndicated by other broadcasters that aren't bending the knee to autocratic rule. ABC has shown its not ripe for the fight, and has separated itself as the chaff from the wheat.
If there were a monopoly on media from ONE broadcaster, and that broadcaster didn't fight back, that's a wrap.
But to be sure, competition is NOT an innate feature of capitalism (economic power naturally consolidates in laissez-faire markets), but competition is an external check on capitalism's power; which is empowered by government regulation; and creates mixed market economies. Just as well, mixed market economies - and the ability to have multiple companies for goods and services - are an external check on government AND society power, as well as other companies themselves. It allows people to choose who to work for, buy/sell from, and build their own enterprise if they don't agree with present-day offerings.
I had never seen Kimmel until I watched the YouTube clip¹ linked elsewhere in this thread earlier today. After doing so, I cancelled my Disney+ subscription, giving “cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel” as the reason and won’t be in any hurry to re-join (though I heard the new Alien TV show is worth watching).
I hate cancel culture whether it’s coming from the conservative right (we’ve had that in Ireland for most of the 20th century) or the liberal left (more recently) and I believe that comedy should be able to transgress social norms and push up against boundaries but what I saw of Kimmel was wholly innocuous.
Not that I or anyone has done it, but there is theoretically there is a way to enjoy these TV shows for free from companies one doesn't want to fund. sailing or something...
That's why you can blame them, because billions of private dollars should not outweigh maintaining a stable democracy and civil society for all. "Just following market incentives to maximize shareholder value" is 2025's "just following orders".
Yeah I’d say priority 1 is having the charger at all and then ideally having a fast one. It sucks to show up to all these charging places and wait an hour because half of them are down at any moment in time and the are only 2-4 per location
They do - a range of 800 km is possible with CATL latest battery. And about 100 km of range can be added per minute, so it's now very close to adding range as fast as petrol cars.
To me that is the turning point and not using lithium is an added bonus.
The madness is the total reliance on cheap Chinese products, with very few or zero US alternatives. But building knowhow and sourcing rare metals will be a very tough challenge.
It seems that China has the upper hand for now, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
China has the upper hand and the US is being run by morons. With the US cutting itself off from the largest supplier of electronics while simultaneously destroying the basic research infrastructure that keeps America on the bleeding edge you can expect a brain drain towards Europe and Asia. The damage from this administration will last generations.
We are being run by abject morons who will never be able to understand simple truths, one of which is China is in a far stronger position: their factories are missing dollars. We are missing goods. One of those is easy for a central bank / government to replace.
Watching these people discover where the world's rare earths come from is equally amazing and terrifying.
Rare earth metals aren’t very rare, they’re just messy to extract and refine.
There are reasons that the Chinese (government) want so many dollars, and the external funds are not easy to replace (or they would have done it already). This is not to support the current trade ‘war’, but just to point out that it’s a bit more complicated than you can describe in a pithy comment.
Don't worry, we'll just mine everything we need ourselves in the active warzones in Ukraine! I bet Yosemite has tons of the rare earth we need, we just have to dynamite everything in there to find it! /s
What do you think the point of rebalancing trade is? To get out of dependence on foreign suppliers. "China's economy, copmposed of massive domestic production, industrial capacity, and manufacturing inputs is in a stronger position"
Yes, sounds like something that should be changed to increase the strength of the US. China has protectionist economic policy and trade barriers. If that equals strength why shouldn't we do it too?
>If that equals strength why shouldn't we do it too?
Tall order to prove this. Does it actually equal strength? What is strength and does China actually have said strength? None of this is defined.
Additionally, China has economic policies that if the US followed would be very, like the games they play with their currency valuation for example. They also have stringent capital controls, many of their largest businesses are the government has a large slice of the ownership, they subsidize export corporations to a much broader degree etc.
Are you also arguing for those things as well? Because its not simply tariffs that mark the only difference in economic policy between the US and China
The other asinine thing is we implemented tariffs against all countries, without a plan, and without a definitive proven reason as to why. As many economists have pointed out, the trade deficit is very deceiving and does not equate to there being a problem for the US inherently.
The current nonsense is the opposite of strength - it is empty bluster, based on ideas two decades out of date, by a "man" who talks like he's had a frontal lobotomy and who can't even sit on a chair properly.
Actually righting the severe damage done to our industrial base would take constructive direction by the government to build it back - once again the complete opposite of what they're actually doing by attacking our still-existing educational/research institutions.
At best high tariff taxes are just closing the barn door long after the horse ran away. But really it's just the same old pattern of the same type of hollow politicians using pent up frustration about the last scam to drive support for their next scam.
I agree with the barn door analogy and that the US badly needs a plan for building manufacturing.
It also needs a plan for mining rare earth minerals as well as a plan for processing them.
On the flip side the deal with Ukraine for rare earth minerals might just end the war, if not Russia see this as an opportunity to get all of the territory it currently occupies.
In all seriousness though, China is also not some young slick economic powerhouse. It's largely propped up facade with serious structural issues that the US doesn't have.
Also keep in mind that while countries are annoyed with the US, that doesn't mean they are going to welcome Chinese ships into their waters.
They are far and away the leaders in manufacturing. Also the only country with a tech sector on near parity with the US.
Yes, their housing market is messed up and that causes problems in the financial sector, but it's a real stretch to call everything else in the country "propped up".
Other countries simply don't have the same supply lines and trained workforce. There are no other countries with anything even remotely comparable to something like Shenzhen's electronics market, for example. Who wants to go to a different country when your product will take longer to ship, will have a worse quality, and will be more expensive to manufacture?
Besides, the US doesn't have a stable foreign policy. Moving your manufacturing to a different country takes years, why would anyone start that process when there is zero guarantee that the same tariffs will be in place a month from now, let alone a year or two from now?
And where would you move to? Any country which attracts a significant amount of manufacturing is pretty much guaranteed to be hit with the same kind of tariffs. The only safe option is the US itself - but it's often cheaper to just accept the tariffs!
I bet a lot of companies are just going to accept the revenue loss and wait for the US to stop acting crazy. The tariffs are only just starting to hit and people are already getting mad. This won't last forever.
> Other countries simply don't have the same supply lines and trained workforce
This is tempered, isn't it?
1) the whole advantage of China that we exploited WAS a large untrained uneducated workforce. That wasn't worth it anymore and things like textiles have already largely moved.
Of course, this doesn't apply to a number of sectors like electronics. But:
2) anyone educated and/or with money is scrambling to leave China, and this is nothing new.
I think the answer fairly conclusively in the global south is that, yes, yes they will let Chinese ships in their waters.
It will be bizarro-land if we have people in Kenya, Colombia, South Africa, and Peru driving around in 10000 dollar Chinese EVs and using 5000 dollar Chinese robots to clean their homes. While we pay 5 to 10 times that for the same conveniences.
I seriously think there's a really good chance the world 25 years from now may have a fundamentally different structure than it has had for the past 100 years.
It's time to open your eyes to the way the rest of the world lives because "bizzaro land" is basically here. Cheap Chinese roomba replacements clean people's homes, $15000 Chinese EVs are insanely popular, and the price of all these goods certified for the US market is 200-300% higher, so many Chinese companies don't bother.
Some quick searches on car costs and converting between South African rand and USD, it looks like US consumers already pay around 2-3x as much for a car (just in general using averages, didn't look for specific models or EVs).
Car prices in the US are way up over the last few years—prices, which were already trending up, spiked with "Covid shortages" and then just kept going up after those should have been alleviated. Was the ratio as bad in, say, 2015? (I really don't know)
Are Chinese ships not already delivering products and welcomed?
I was Peru last year and saw nothing but Chinese made electronics, especially phones, and a lot of cars. I see more and more Chinese electric cars in Mexico too. Talking to the locals they seem to like Chinese tourists just wish they spent as much as Americans.
Nope. All other Asian countries are putting transshipment controls in place to prevent Chinese trade getting funnelled through. They went around Trump in his first term and now he is out for revenge. Mfgs must leave China now if they want access to the US market. He just skull fucked Chinas economy.
The brain drain started decades ago. We've been importing people for STEM jobs and exporting manufacturing for a while, leaving behind large numbers of people with no hope for a better future. Now the rest of the country faces that prospect as well
Yep, was there 20 years ago. The secret is having first class universities and a stable, thriving economy that attracts bright students. American exceptionalism is that momentum.
The brightest people in the world want to come here and contribute to our economy and spend the money they earn here at your businesses. That’s a privilege, and it’s too bad we don’t value it more.
I think it's worse than generations. It will likely never recover. What's happening resembles when private equity takes over a company and runs it into the ground intentionally.
Not sure why people keep insisting that goods from China are “cheap,” which always seems to carry a negative connotation when in reality, “cheap” is exactly what we seem to want as consumers in wealthier western countries.
And in many cases, these products are neither cheap nor expensive, they’re simply the only option, because no one else in the world manufactures them. So, what exactly are we comparing them to? And if the assumption is that producing the same goods in Europe or the US would be more expensive then that’s likely true but only because we still expect to earn a living wage, even in factory jobs
The USA could bring manufacturing back, but not with tariffs.
They can't tell businesses "Look, we've dramatically increased your cost of doing business, made your products more expensive (which will likely lead to lower sales) and we're forcing you to spend extra capital by paying tariffs on your products... Now all you need to do is come up with billions of dollars to build the factories that build your product and eat the high costs for the 5 - 10 years it will take to build the factories. We don't care if you're a small business that only sells $1M of product a year, if you want to reduce your costs, you need to build the factories."
Of course, the question is whether Americans really want those factory jobs -- do parents aspire to have their children work in a factory assembling iPhones? There's only so many Robot Technician jobs to go around (despite the promise of unlimited high paid technician jobs, for the forseable future there will be plenty of menial factory jobs)
I don't know what jobs will be left. As our benefits have dried up. e.g. retirement, healthcare, job stability. Every article I've read basically said workers are going to need to be very adaptable. Forget about the lives your parents, and or grandparents had. That is gone. AI is only going to make things worse. I'm not anti-immigrant but H1-B has made the U.S. dependent on Indian labor, as it has done exactly what it was never supposed to do i.e. replace american workers with cheaper foreign labor, this is largely due to Indian Contract companies that are rife with fraud (both conservative and liberal administrations have found that). So, IT has lead the way to professional gig work i.e. contracts with either no benefits, are very high cost ones. Without protection, there just will not be stable jobs in this country. Forget retirement, most of us probably can't afford basic health care. Don't even think about dental care. In my mind, we are entering a new feudal age. No it won't be land based, but it's the same thing. Land was just the leverage for power, now it might just be net-worth and/or position. In general, American's are becoming poorer. I see us looking more like other nations with a largely poor populous. I'm guessing the rich already see most of us, like the nobles of old as peasants, with the same or similar justifications for bigotry. Divine right, or the rest are just dumb, and uneducated and only fit for manual labor, until we die (early).
P.S. I love sherlock holmes, and from that have some fascination of Victorian England, I just never thought we would go back to it. It was great if you were a noble and/or rich, but most of the populous wasn't either and suffered. All from my understanding, so historians or just more historically knowledgeable people can correct me.
A stated reason is bringing manufacturing back to the US, just one of many various, contradicting reasons that have been thrown out there. The administration has been throwing so many different justifications at the wall that shift over time; there hasn't been a commitment to any actual stated goal.
And indeed some of their actions don't even line up with bringing manufacturing back to the US as a goal; like the whole concept of 'reciprocal' tariffs being different country-by-country. And making a big deal out of 'making deals' with countries to lower tariffs.
Not to mention that if bringing manufacturing back to the US was really a primary goal, there are better ways to accomplish it than forcefully and recklessly driving the US into a deep economic contraction -- because it'll mean investing a lot of capital in building a lot of manufacturing capacity, and business doesn't like investing huge amounts of capital during a downturn, and we're on the cusp of the mother of all downturns because even if capital gets sank into rebuilding domestic manufacturing, it's going to take years before it can come online.
What I think is really going on is that a lot of wealthy people got wealthier by exploiting opportunities that arose from the 2008 crisis; and they want another bite at the apple, so one is being manufactured.
> I think the total reliance is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.
> I still think this approach to addressing that issue is complete madness.
You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith. The original 'emergency' declarations justifying large initial tariffs in February were because of a 'fentanyl crisis'. Which then morphed in to 'well, we should be manufacturing here for defense purposes' and assorted other arguments along the way ("we're getting ripped off!", etc).
There's a danger in being cynical about this, but also danger in taking everything at face value. There's been no coherent communicated policy with justifications and expected outcomes or timelines ever put forward the same way twice from this administration.
> You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith.
To clarify, I’m not assuming the administration is acting in good faith.
But in casual conversation, I try to assume the person who worries about total reliance is acting in good faith, so my reply was primarily directed at the comment itself which I have to assume comes from someone who may believe the administration is actually attempting to address the issue.
I think there are numerous ways to split this:
- The reliance concern as a standalone consideration
- How the current administration sees/uses this concern
- How the public perceives this concern
- How the current administration claims they’re addressing it
- Whatever the current administration’s true goals are
Yeah. One thing among many that some in the US don't seem to get: only one side in this war needs to completely rearrange their economy in order to survive, and it's us.
The people who believe government intervention can't do anything good are arguing that we're in an existential crisis because the Chinese government is executing too well.
And their approach is to cripple our own government.
I have no idea what the administration’s plan or thoughts might be, but I suspect that one part of it is that they’ve seen how many governments (including their own, as well as allies like the EU) delay and defer as negotiation strategies. The EU even used delays and uncertainty against its very closest ally (the UK) in trade negotiations. As a result, sudden and ‘violent’ shifts are the only way to get things done in the current environment.
The only way for China to lose influence in this fight is by playing ball. They can simply continue to trade with the rest of the world and be totally fine when it is US consumers paying the bill.
This is what I don't quite get? What is the impetus for their government to want to play ball with us?
The incentive for their companies is that they can access US markets. But their government is a bit different. That government has clearly been serious about 2 things for the past couple of decades, one is developing an internal market. (Which, prior to our imposition of tariffs, they were failing miserably at). The other is their pivot to the global south. (Which, prior to our imposition of tariffs, they were wildly successful at).
Now that we started a trade war, they will be more successful at both. Especially the pivot to the global south. I guess I just can't see why the government of China feels more urgency to talk with us, than it feels to accelerate their pivot to, and development of, markets in the global south for instance? Why is talking to us the better choice for their government strategically speaking?
I mean, if I were sitting in their shoes, I'd just be like, "Man, this is be the perfect illustration of why it was so important to pivot to the global south in the first place."
There is surely a balance to be struck to get some of the benefits of global trade, without creating a dependency that can be exploited to create leverage against you.
I struggle to comprehend this viewpoint, echoed by many, with respect to: what possible benefit of global trade is the United States (well, previous to tariffs anyway) already not receiving?
We can buy goods by printing money, which no other nation can lay claim to, because the U.S. Dollar is the default world currency. Everyone accepts USD, and wants USD. Every other nation on Earth in fact is always looking to buy dollars, because dollars are what everything is purchased in. Further, our standing in the globe and favorable geographic location means we can import anything from virtually anywhere, but most especially China, Korea, and Japan.
Yeah we don't "make things" here anymore, the pundits say, apart from dozens of product categories over hundreds of industries. "Everything comes from China!" Okay, and? I don't want a job in a factory and I suspect a shitload of other people here also don't, and my source for that is every factory and logistics center near me is constantly trying to hire people and seemingly being unable to.
There's no permanence here, and you don't understand history or even business if you think this imbalance and dependence doesn't equal weakness at some point in the future. Just because we want China to always work for us and give us what we want doesn't mean completely ceding control of the decision means it will work out. Does any business (operating in much less cut throat stakes than great-power geopolitics) even bank all their supply on external sources, let alone one, let alone that one being their biggest adversary? Madness.
But we have every reason to believe China will continue working for us because China benefits from that work. And insofar as the U.S. and China are adversaries at all seems to be purely culture war nonsense. China is not setting out to destroy the United States, they're setting out to sell the United States shit and we are setting out to buy it. The only reason there is even contention in this at all is that many pundits and analysts see the collapse of the American manufacturing sector as somehow the devious plans of a foreign adversary, and not the result of American business people seeking cheaper labor that works more efficiently overseas.
If we assume China is an adversary, then I would say it logically follows that the vast majority of American executives are in fact collaborating with the enemy, because they played critical roles in getting China to where it is today.
China is a potential adversary because they are an authoritarian, undemocratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations (Taiwan). If everything stayed exactly the way it is today, except the Communist party rulership were dissolved and replaced by a multi-party constitutional republic with representatives appointed through free, open elections I don't think the US would have nearly the same incentive to divest from China.
Free markets don't care about moral concerns like that though, just what's most economically efficient. And in the absence of tariffs, trading with China is very economically efficient.
> <blank> is a potential adversary because they are an authoritarian, undemocratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations
Fill in the blank with preferred major nation power of your choice.
> China is a potential adversary because they are an authoritarian, undemocratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations (Taiwan).
As opposed to an authoritarian, Democratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations (Canada)?
> If everything stayed exactly the way it is today, except the Communist party rulership were dissolved and replaced by a multi-party constitutional republic with representatives appointed through free, open elections I don't think the US would have nearly the same incentive to divest from China.
Why does the U.S. have the right to declare unilaterally what forms of government are acceptable and what aren't? And no I'm not saying we have to necessarily trade with them, obviously, apart from the fact that the CCP came into power in 1949. We're a bit late to suddenly have issues with their government NOW after nearly half a century spent working with them in the open, and giving them shit tons of money.
The US's authoritarian tendencies are not in remotely the same league as China and it's absurd to pretend otherwise.
Our right to declare that rule apart from the consent of the governed is unacceptable comes from the fact that it is unacceptable, not because the US has any special rights to declare it so. We hold these truths to be self-evident, now just as we did then.
The US has always had that same fundamental issue with China's government; we've just chosen to react to that reality in different ways over the years. China being more of an economic powerhouse now makes it a larger threat to human freedom than it has been in the past, so there are valid reasons to re-consider the status quo.
* Japan (the use of the atomic bomb was controversial even then as it was after it was obvious the empire was finished and it was merely a matter of paperwork)
* Laos
* Cambodia
* Afghanistan
* Puerto Rico
* NEARLY Honduras, over fucking bananas of all things
> The USA is a big bully, destroying lives and livelihoods all over the world since the genocide of American Indians stopped in their own backyard
And even the notion that the genocide has stopped is dubious. We may no longer be openly killing them, and I guess that isn't nothing, but their cultures are irreparably damaged and most natives in the States live lives of poverty and suffering.
I don't think you know what authoritarianism is. Military interventions in foreign affairs are a completely orthogonal issue.
On that subject though, the US has generally been a force for good around the world. Iraq was briefly a liberal democracy until the US military pulled back out and a theocratic regime took over again by force. Vietnam was a well-intentioned but bungled attempt to stop the spread of communism. When the US lost and pulled out the country turned into a one-party dictatorship. Other political parties there are outlawed. That's who the US was fighting against. The fact that these interventions ultimately failed doesn't make the attempts any less noble, though you can certainly make the case they were foolhardy to even try. Or perhaps if you're a pacifist you could argue any military intervention, even in the defense of human freedom, is immoral. I have mixed feelings on that subject myself, but it's ridiculous to compare anything the US did in recent history to what China or Russia are currently attempting or threatening to attempt. We never tried to conquer Iraq or Vietnam, just free them.
The US is a bully to dictatorial regimes and a friend to liberal democracies around the world. Trump's cage rattling is a tiny blip in the grand scheme of that legacy.
> I don't think you know what authoritarianism is. Military interventions in foreign affairs are a completely orthogonal issue.
Then why did you cite them as the reason for China's authoritarianism becoming a problem?
> Iraq was briefly a liberal democracy until the US military pulled back out and a theocratic regime took over again by force.
You know the CIA funded the Taliban, right? We also installed Saddam Hussein.
> Vietnam was a well-intentioned but bungled attempt to stop the spread of communism.
Why is this a good thing? See previous question about "Why does the US get to unilaterally decide which forms of government are acceptable?"
> When the US lost and pulled out the country turned into a one-party dictatorship.
Or, if you were not on the U.S.'s side in this, you might be phrasing that more like: "When the U.S. pulled out, their puppet government collapsed immediately."
> The fact that these interventions ultimately failed doesn't make the attempts any less noble, though you can certainly make the case they were foolhardy to even try.
I would say they were both foolhardy and ignoble personally.
> Or perhaps if you're a pacifist you could argue any military intervention, even in the defense of human freedom, is immoral.
No pacifist would argue that.
> I have mixed feelings on that subject myself, but it's ridiculous to compare anything the US did in recent history to what China or Russia are currently attempting or threatening to attempt.
You can quibble about numbers and equivalence all you like. I'm not saying China is unambiguously good. I'm saying they are not guilty of anything the United States is not also guilty of and so the moral condemnation from said United States rings incredibly hollow and hypocritical. It feels more like the United States is upset that another country is beating it at the game it designed.
If I had my personal way, Xi Jinping and every president still living would be tried for the war crimes they are most definitely guilty of, along with dozens of other leaders from the so called "developed" world. A man can dream.
> why did you cite them as the reason for China's authoritarianism becoming a problem
China annexing Taiwan wouldn't merely be "intervening in foreign affairs". When an authoritarian regime conquers a liberal democracy, the people in the annexed area are no longer free. It's the same reason we couldn't just ignore Hitler taking over half of Europe. If he'd just stuck to oppressing the people in his own territory it's possible the rest of the world would have let him and Germany might still be an authoritarian dictatorship today.
> the CIA funded the Taliban
Iraqis were hardly free prior to that. Short of direct military intervention, you often have to choose between what you believe to be the lesser of several evils. I'd agree that was probably a misguided choice in this case.
> Why is this a good thing? See previous question about "Why does the US get to unilaterally decide which forms of government are acceptable?"
See my answer to that question. Human freedom is an inherent good.
> "When the U.S. pulled out, their puppet government collapsed immediately."
True democracies can't be puppets; they're controlled by the people they govern. And it wasn't voted out by the populace, it fell to a military attack by a theocratic regime.
If your trading partner is an authoritarian dictatorship that has publicly stated they are in a thousands-year struggle for global supremacy, then maybe we should shift some key imports away from them
It's 100 years, not 1000 years, and it's a fight for Chinese well-being, not global supremacy, though it's understandable that people who believe Chinese well-being is incompatible with US hegemony would confuse the two: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-game-chinas-gran...
I don't see how the us is supposed to be any better. Why can't we use this energy to fight the rich people making this country a shithole rather than starting a beef we can only lose.
I get what you are saying, but the U.S. BUYS goods, because we are "too rich" to make them. We SELL services, because other countries are "too poor" to offer them.
When this administration focuses solely on one side of that (Goods vs Services), they miss the forest for the trees. I'm not saying we shouldn't bring back manufacturing, because we should, but we can't pretend that we get the short end of the stick in this trade partnership.
China makes the cheap shit that isn't economical here, and the only way to make it economical here is to pay a tax on the cheap shit we want if it isn't made here, but the crazy thing is we could do a 400% tariff on Chinese imports, and it is still too expensive to buy American for most goods. Not even getting to the point that we don't have the infrastructure here because that also costs money, which would rise the price for American goods even higher.
Does Bill Gates mow his own lawn? No!
Does Donald Trump grill his own Big Mac? No!
Because when you hit a certain "wealth bracket" you stop doing things that are below that and hire them out. We hired China because we were too rich.
"Cheap foreign products are a necessity when so-called American companies don't love Americans enough to pay them what they're worth. It's the whole reason things went overseas in the first place. It's gonna be nice if we can finally get American companies to actually support America and pay citizens what they're worth."
The above sounds nice, but it's oversimplified, like a lot of political rhetoric recently. Now, if this does end up making real living wages for the American worker a commonplace thing, that's awesome, but I'm pessimistic given the history of things, how money can influence politics, and how corporate lawyers can find loopholes.
I'm not sure if it would pan out like how your half-brother wants it to be. Let's assume the manufacturing jobs return here and you are getting paid American wages. But if you try to turn around and spend it on anything, it will just be more expensive because everything else you want to buy is also being made in US factories and those workers are also getting pay similar to yours? You might have a manufacturing job finally but now you are paying $350 for a Nike shoe that used to be $150 when it was made in China. You want to buy a new TV? It costs more now. You want to upgrade your old iPhone? It costs more now.
So will the American manufacturing wages actually translate to living wages or will you just be getting paid more on paper but you still feel poor because the things you want to buy are all more expensive now?
Genuine question but did folks feel poor during the heyday of the middle class? It seems like there was a period post-ww2 where you could make a living wage and still buy a house and sends your kids to college.
I'm not sure what the answer here is, but it does seem like this is something that has existed. Consumerism was pretty rampant in the 50s and 60s when a lot more was still made in the US.
If everything is automated then where do people work?
If only some things are automated, then yes those places will have an advantage when it comes to labor costs, but they will use it to pad their profit margin.
Factory X employs humans ands sells widgets for $100, but their costs are $90, so profit is $10.
Factory Y is automated and they have costs of $10. Do they sell their widget at $30, thus earning a handsome profit of $20? No, they charge $90 and earn an obscene profit of $80. The worker gets screwed, the shareholders get richer.
This whole thing only works if workers have ownership in the corporation, but that's gasp socialism and we can't have that.
the same places they work now, displacing foreign workers shouldn’t effect American workers?
if the goods are made and exported from American factories the owners of those factories will be increasing the local, state and federal tax bases, how is that not an improvement over offshoring production?
workers are currently being screwed by globalist companies offshoring production and also using that as a way to offshore profits also, i doubt any workers will shed tears if that stops.
socialism as you described is fine, not sure how its relevant in this case, its perfectly legal to start coops and they exist even in the tech world, most people dont seek them out and it appears they underperform their peers, where are all the major coop tech companies?
> “It's gonna be nice if we can finally get American companies to actually support America and pay citizens what they're worth.”
Posters are skeptical because prices will raise across the board for these good. You ask:
> “what if they are largely automated”
If that’s the case, and they work where they work now as you say, then Americans will just get poorer as things become more expensive due to tariffs. The factory owner is keeps all the protectionist profits. Maybe some of that goes back into the tax base but we know these types are good at paying 0% taxes.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That’s why socialism is relevant, because that’s the system under which this idea at a national scale actually helps workers, whereas this idea under capitalism helps mainly capitalists. Which is why I’m so confused because you keep talking about workers in your post, but that’s not who this is for.
Wait till this person finds out he can't have his mandarin orange segments in his nightly Jello salad anymore and then I expect they'll have a different opinion.
I agree, and I am in favor of protectionist tariffs. But it does seem to be poor strategy to rush into high tariffs without the pieces put in the place for American industry to grow and benefit. That said, I don't believe Trump is that stupid (despite the trendy opinion to the contrary), and I think he knows this is doomed to fail if the goal is immediate American industry bloom. Which is why I don't believe these are intended to be long term. Based on how the other tariffs have gone, it seems to be more of a negotiation tactic to reduce tariffs on both sides, not protectionism. China has just put up more of a resistance to it than other nations have, so now it's turned into a game of chicken.
Do you think he's acting when he does things like keep preventing an interviewer from moving on because he wants to make extra sure everyone knows he entirely believes that obviously-photoshopped, not-trying-to-look-like-anything-but-an-overlay letters and numbers on a picture of someone's hand were in fact real tattoos?
I mean, it's one example. Do you think the constantly that he presents as conspicuously extremely stupid is all an act? Do you think the several people who've been close to him who describe him as breathtakingly stupid are lying, or incorrect (fooled by another part of that act, one supposes)?
I don't see what gets people to class as unlikely the notion that he might be a really stupid guy with some really dumb ideas who's being pulled multiple directions by other people who may or may not also be dumb but do have bad/evil ideas. To me that appears overwhelmingly to be the most likely explanation for... all of it, really. It may still be wrong! But why isn't it—at least—a top contender, explanation-wise?
> Do you think the several people who've been close to him who describe him as breathtakingly stupid are lying, or incorrect (fooled by another part of that act, one supposes)?
James Comey wrote that he was moderately intelligent (I forget Comey's exact phrasing).
And I think that's true.
He's smart enough to know when to lie to escape legal jeopardy, so I think that's a mark of some amount of intelligence.
But he is also horriffically broken in some part of his personality, to the point where he lacks empathy, and constantly lies to obtain advantage.
Because if Trump is really truly an idiot, what does that make the people who willingly chose to vote for him and didn't see that? People just can't accept what that says about their own judgement, so they have to pretend it's all an act.
Because if Trump is really truly an idiot, what does that make the people who willingly chose to vote for him and didn't see that? People just can't accept that possibility, so they have to pretend it's all an act.
They're trying to tell you that Trump is as stupid as he seems. For many people, they're faking being stupid. Trump, like George W Bush, is not. There's no 4D chess going on here, whatever seems like the simplest explanation with Trump is almost always exactly what's being done. Keep it simple. Trump likes simple.
I hate to break it to you, but George W. Bush isn't stupid. While GW Bush did cultivate that "dumb hick" persona, that's all it was -- a fake persona.
This gubernatorial debate[0] (from 1994) between then Governor Ann Richards and George W. Bush will give the lie to the idea that 'Dubya' is dumb. Definitely an amoral jerk, but not dumb.
I've yet to gain access to a level of "high place" at which the distribution of competence and intelligence is a ton different from a median public high school classroom. It's been one of the more disturbing discoveries of my adult life, that every time I get insight into one of these it's barely better than anything else on that front, and usually worse in the ethics and trustworthiness department.
I think that no matter how good Waymo is doing, there is still the problem of who is responsible when a self driving is involved in a serious accident.
The only solution to that is probably to only let self driving cars onto the road, in an all-or-nothing solution.
Apple is very dependent on using the latest process node from TSMC though.
For that reason and the fact that the US cannot match what TSMC does, it all points to Taiwan dictating what kind of aid the US must provide.
I don't see the current US leadership wanting to put that in jeopardy.
https://www.openculture.com/2020/11/before-creating-the-moom...