[ckaihatsu]

But... but... what else is there...? :?:

Rancid and UM are 'blank-slate' types, so they talk as if the world just started yesterday.

[Rancid]

Rancid and UM are 'blank-slate' types, so they talk as if the world just started yesterday.

Fuck off weasel.

[ckaihatsu]

Fuck off weasel.

And yet it's true, protectionist.

[Rancid]

And yet it's true, protectionist.

What are you on about?

You are completely full of shit yourself dude.

[ckaihatsu]

And yet it's true, protectionist.

What are you on about?

You are completely full of shit yourself dude.

It was just *last month* -- remember?


---

Something @noemon said in another thread is really starting to ring true with me. Authoritarian states and their supporters, put a whole lot of emphasis on primary/base level economic resources. Like gas, oil, food, etc. Basically raw materials and (mostly low tech) manufacturing. They seem to completely ignore the higher tiers of economic activities and development that are basically what defines what an advance economy is.

This is why we see so much emphasis on the myth that the west has "exported its entire manufacturing base to China" from these types of people. They have a myopic outlook. Sure, the west's low tier manufacturing base has been exported mostly, but that is the easiest thing to bring back (and we already see some companies doing just that). What has not been exported is it's high tech manufacturing base, and in fact, we see more investment in those areas.

There's also a deglobalization that is starting to happen. COVID & Russia's illegal war is accelerating this process. Any company that thinks things will go back to the old days where you manufacture most/all your product in one country, and in especially an authoritarian country are going to lose. They will lose to competitors that don't do that and realize that the world has changed. Globalization in its pre-covid form is dying. Manufacturing will become more regionlized. The US/Canada will use its poorer states (like the US southern states), Mexico, and South America more than China for lower cost labor. Europe, will use Eastern Europe and North Africa more than Asia. Etc. etc. Sure, people in the west will need to pay more for shit, but that's ok. It's time to stop placing profits over people. Who loses the most from this shift? China; no country is more dependent on this old/dying system than China. It will become harder for them to maintain their growth (once you remove their real estate bubble, their growth doesn't look that great anymore). It will also become harder for them to steal technology/IP since there will be less foreign business there.

We are not going back to the old ways, and this should be net benefit for rest of the world that isn't China (or Russia).

Retro-'70s-style *retrenchment*, as the Trump Administration started, feeds into global neo-*feudalism*, though -- is this what the world *should* want, or what it *needs* -- ?

You're just touting nationalist *protectionism* here, since the U.S. is slipping, and your fortress mentality is getting the better of you.

viewtopic.php?p=15247813#p15247813

[Unthinking Majority]

Rancid and UM are 'blank-slate' types, so they talk as if the world just started yesterday.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Let me put it *this* way -- why does 'left' and 'right' even *exist* in politics? How are they different? Did the world just start yesterday?

[Unthinking Majority]

Let me put it *this* way -- why does 'left' and 'right' even *exist* in politics? How are they different? Did the world just start yesterday?

Right and left exist for similar reasons that men and women exist. Some people are dicks while other people are pussies.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think that what @ckaihatsu means is that many people ignore history. Specifically, they assume that all of us exist on some imaginary equal footing that does not actually exist because of history.

At least, that is my interpretation. @ckaihatsu is sometimes unclear.

[ckaihatsu]

I think that what @ckaihatsu means is that many people ignore history. Specifically, they assume that all of us exist on some imaginary equal footing that does not actually exist because of history.

At least, that is my interpretation. @ckaihatsu is sometimes unclear.

Yeah, that's it.

Proceed.

(grin)

Right and left exist for similar reasons that men and women exist. Some people are dicks while other people are pussies.

South Park. Classic.

Yeah, so whether you're a criminologist yourself or whatever, just consider that *real* politics has to do with government spending -- and, I'll add, 'public sphere policy', as wide as that reach can potentially humanely go.

[late]

Let me put it *this* way -- why does 'left' and 'right' even *exist* in politics? How are they different? Did the world just start yesterday?

When America started, there were no parties, the Founding Fathers seriously did not want parties.

But during Washington's presidency, Jefferson and Hamilton started fighting, and that evolved into political parties.

So why do parties exist? There's a number of ways to answer that. A good one is that people are part of different cultures or ideologies. But the way I like is that humans are assholes.

It's not good v evil, usually. Jefferson had slaves, Hamilton was eager to screw people over to serve his interests.

[ckaihatsu]

When America started, there were no parties, the Founding Fathers seriously did not want parties.

But during Washington's presidency, Jefferson and Hamilton started fighting, and that evolved into political parties.

So why do parties exist? There's a number of ways to answer that. A good one is that people are part of different cultures or ideologies. But the way I like is that humans are assholes.

It's not good v evil, usually. Jefferson had slaves, Hamilton was eager to screw people over to serve his interests.

With the early U.S. I'd say that much of it -- then as now -- was a matter of leadership *direction*. The country made tidy work of paying off its early debt obligations, and history doesn't emphasize Dutch and French links at the time. So it's been in particularly 'incubator' conditions, I'd say, especially compared to *other* transition-to-modernity national stories.

The pall that that history has received in recent years is possibly partly due to the evidence showing imperialist *intent* right from the get-go.

[Rancid]

I think that what @ckaihatsu means is that many people ignore history. Specifically, they assume that all of us exist on some imaginary equal footing that does not actually exist because of history.

At least, that is my interpretation. @ckaihatsu is sometimes unclear.

and my point is @ckaihatsu is a jackass if he thinks I don't understand that.

[ckaihatsu]

and my point is @ckaihatsu is a jackass if he thinks I don't understand that.

I'm going by what you tend to *post*, Rancid. Mostly it's *interpersonal* from you, while more-political people (like myself) would rather get into what's going on with the larger world.

You seem all-too-content to let things drift in Trumpist directions -- protectionism.

[Rancid]

I'm going by what you tend to *post*, Rancid. Mostly it's *interpersonal* from you, while more-political people (like myself) would rather get into what's going on with the larger world.

You seem all-too-content to let things drift in Trumpist directions -- protectionism.

Clearly, you only read like 50% of my posts and thus you have the wrong read on me. You are completely mistaken. If you actually are reading all my postings over the years (or even just the last few months), then you have reading comprehension problems.

Also, I will often post about how things are/work, and not how they should be. I think you mistake a lot of those posts as endorsements, which they are often not.

[ckaihatsu]

Clearly, you only real like 50% of my posts and thus you are completely mistaken. If not that, then you have reading comprehension problems.

Let's just focus on the following "1%" of your collection:

Sure, the west's low tier manufacturing base has been exported mostly, but that is the easiest thing to bring back (and we already see some companies doing just that).

viewtopic.php?p=15250333#p15250333

This is the oldest domestic political lie in circulation, and yet you're warming it up again.

It seems like something out of The Onion, but since it's *not* then *you're* the one stuck with it.

[Rancid]

This is the oldest domestic political lie in circulation, and yet you're warming it up again.

It seems like something out of The Onion, but since it's *not* then *you're* the one stuck with it.

I'll post again due to the late edit in my previous post.

I will often post about how things are/work, and not how they should/ought to be. I think you often mistake a lot of my posts of that nature as endorsements, which they are often not.

The statement you've quote of me above, is absolutely true, and not an endorsement of protectionism. Low tier manufacturing is the easiest to reshore/offshore. That statement per say, is not an endorsement of protectionism. That is a (ridiculously dumb and) impressive leap you've made there. How on earth do you even make that connection?

and yes, many companies are looking at reshoring and/or diversifying their manufacturing away from China due to geopolitical risks. How is that a political lie?

Easy and very recent example:
Apple has diversified away from China by moving more production of new iphones models to India (they've only ever produced old models in India, which is big shift). They have also moved some production of mac books to the US. Many different reasons including zero covid, China's crack down on tech, China's growing belligerence towards its neighbors including Taiwan.

How is pointing out these facts an endorsement of protectionism?

[ckaihatsu]

I'll post again due to the late edit in my previous post.

I will often post about how things are/work, and not how they should be. I think you mistake a lot of my posts as endorsements, which they are often not.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

The statement you've quote of me above, is absolutely true. Low tier manufacturing is the easiest to reshore/offshore. That statement per say, is not an endorsement of protectionism. That is a (ridiculously dumb and) impressive leap you've made there.

Doesn't it imply Trump's protectionist tariffs and punitive international sanctions -- ?

Not only will there be the lump-sum expense of *relocation*, but I doubt the *margins* would be worth it these days -- how competitive, exactly, do you think U.S. labor *is* on the international labor market? Once repatriated how would such companies be internationally *competitive*, from U.S. soil?

[ckaihatsu]

The statement you've quote of me above, is absolutely true, and not an endorsement of protectionism. Low tier manufacturing is the easiest to reshore/offshore. That statement per say, is not an endorsement of protectionism. That is a (ridiculously dumb and) impressive leap you've made there. How on earth do you even make that connection?

and yes, many companies are looking at reshoring and/or diversifying their manufacturing away from China due to geopolitical risks. How is that a political lie?

Easy and very recent example:
Apple has diversified away from China by moving more production of iphones to India. They have also moved some production of mac books to the US. Many different reasons including zero covid, China's crack down on tech, China's growing belligerence towards its neighbors including Taiwan.

How is pointing out this fact an endorsement of protectionism? :?:

Aren't you tacitly approving the protectionist tariffs that were put in place by Trump?

The reason why it's such a 'thing' is because tariffs lead to *trade* wars (like Trump's disastrous U.S.-China trade war), which lead to *world* wars.

Trade

The Wall Street Journal reported that instead of negotiating access to Chinese markets for large American financial-service firms and pharmaceutical companies, the Biden administration may focus on trade policies that boost exports or domestic jobs. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said the administration wants a "worker-centered trade policy".[54][55] U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said she planned to aggressively enforce trade rules to combat unfair practices by China.[56]

In March 2021, Katherine Tai said that the U.S. would not lift tariffs on Chinese imports in the near future, despite lobbying efforts from "free traders" including former Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson and the Business Roundtable, a big-business group, that pressed for tariff repeal.[57]

At the October 2021 G20 Rome summit, the Biden administration and the European Union reached agreement to rollback the steel and aluminium tariff regime that had been imposed by the Trump administration in 2018. The agreement retained some protection for American steel and aluminium producers by adopting a tariff-rate quota regime. It also ended retaliatory tariffs on American goods the EU had imposed and canceled a scheduled tariff increase by the EU.[58]

China failed by a wide margin to purchase American goods and services as agreed under the January 2020 Phase One trade deal, which expired on December 31, 2021. The Biden administration continued to formulate its China trade policy and faced a decision as to whether to reinstate some tariffs and risk retaliation, or to ignore China's breach amid elevated inflation that might be exacerbated by additional tariffs.[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... tion#Trade

[Fasces]

The only public officials that should have political opinions should be generals, soldiers, and police - but only if they're the right ones!