https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-...
https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacs...
The Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Protectionism rhetoric is a sugar-coat for Americans who will have to foot the bill by paying more for imported goods, but honestly, who else should?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade
You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries?
And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?
I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).
We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
In this case yes. This is competition between nation-states we're talking about, viewing the entire relationship through the narrow lens of economic efficiency is missing the forest for one specific tree.
Unfortunately, American consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices such a culture requires so instead economic nationalists try to push the mercantilist bullshit in the name of protecting domestic industries and national security.
Is that all correct?
Not "other countries", just China.
Now, I'm not an us citizen and I don't like Mr Trump particularly, but consider the following: when you say "less efficient" what are you referring to? Is it technology? USA are certainly not behind China on technology. So what is missing to the equation? It's labor. China is so "efficient" because of its ultra-capitalist-masked-as-communist regime. Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider).
All this (carelessness of environmental impact and no freedom of thought) are basically unfair competition and Donald Trump is right on this initiative.
As a left-leaning person I just cannot understand how is it even possible to accept as the norm the fact that a totalitarian regime like China's has got such a nice treatment so far.
My 2¢
The US is a bigger polluter (per capita) than China. The current administration at the EPA seems to view environmental considerations as hindrances to industry competitiveness.
The EPA has never really bothered that regulate carbon, but they come down hard on the kind of air, water, and soil pollution that exists in China.
Should the USA do more about carbon? Ya, global warming sucks. But the EPA has solved the pollution problem that it was originally envisioned to solve.
As a specific example, the US is (according to Wikipedia at least) second only to San Marino in vehicles per capita (910 for every 1000 people). China is in 73rd place, with a much more modest 154. Electricity consumption is similarly different, with the US' per-capita electricity consumption being triple that of China's (despite China having almost double the total electricity consumption of the US).
If the average Chinese had the same purchasing power as the average American, I can guarantee that China's per-capita pollution would skyrocket to beyond US levels.
It's not just China. There's also Mexico, Canada, Europe ... I don't know exactly the current state of affairs but Trump certainly doesn't punish China because of its bad working conditions.
if so, what is the right way?
But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen.
This is just as true for steel manufacturing.
Yes... That's how technological progress works? Countless millions of jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution, but in there place were new jobs often requiring new (and more) skills. The pace of that turnover has been increasing since the invention of the wheel, one problem now is that we've crossed a threshold where the rate of change is no longer intergenerational but intragenerational.
> I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed.
This doesn't exist and has never existed; it's only that the rate of change has come to a point where it's now easily perceived (and financially felt). I would even argue it will never, and should never exist. Should we lessen the impact that this rate of change can have on people's lives? Yes, with better access to social services and education. Should we lessen the impact that the global economy has on the environment? Yes. Should we strive towards some steady, and therefore stagnant, equilibrium? No, absolutely not.
Anyway, the point is that every small bit of technological progress fundamentally changes the economy and that inevitably changes what jobs are needed. Jobs are created and destroyed, it's the nature of progress.
Many human and non-human lives have been sacrificed at the altar of the "cult of progress" and I don't think we should be so willing to think because something has happened for the last 100-200 years (rapid technological change and exponential exploitation of natural resources) that it can go on forever.
The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.
too late.
When those products were made here, it led to toxic chemical plumes and widespread soil contamination around the factories that produced semiconductors. [1]
>I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland.
Trichloroethylene contamination produces heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. You are advocating to literally produce a toxic wasteland. [2]
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiologica...
Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region.
Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two?
Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to.
You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives.
Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1]
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...
it seems like a logical implication, unless you're also entertaining the idea of production ending altogether.
> Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two?
i'm not sure, would 195 be better, or have some advantages? will all of these 'regions' be identical?
> Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to.
and you advocating that china be the location of choice for toxic waste will surely result in something different?
Petty nationalism will ruin this world. If every country needs its own silicon manufacturing facilities to participate in the tech economy either you’re advocating cutting most people off from the wealth it generates or your advocating for the propagation of toxic manufacturing to every state.
Both positions hurt kids. Hope you can sleep at night.
from what i can discern of your position, i would estimate that your views are harmful. i can sleep fine not agreeing with you.
Most Chinese people lack the freedom to live and work where they choose. Most Americans have that freedom.
So if it is handled here in the US then not only will there be less pollution but far fewer kids would be impacted.
Stop pretending. Learn your history.
this seems to have an a lot packed in. it's not clear how advocating the departure of a minuscule amount of people from china is "helping chinese people" or otherwise demonstrating "care for chinese people".
> Stop pretending. Learn your history. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
this seems to be getting really off the rails. this was repealed in the 40s. what's the relevance?
These restrictive laws have roots in the same petty nationalism that fuels protectionist subsudies.
These laws prevent kids - the kids that you claim to care about - from having a better future elsewhere.
No I wouldn't. That makes no sense at all.
You are the person who brought up kids dying. Either you care 10x more about American kids than Chinese kids or your original argument is garbage.
I don't mind if you do care 10x more about American kids - it's a byproduct of our nationalist culture.
The unnecessary, protectionist subsidization and expansion of toxic waste generating industries leaves ALL kids worse off.
Yes, we'll suffer for 50 years, BUT in that time the supply chain will be created in the U.S. and our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China.
And if I'm wrong, I won't be alive to be able to say I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland.
The best solutions are the ones you won't be around to see fail.
By the way... this strategy will work as long as the entire rest of the world doesn't figure it out, keep their tariffs low, and have the supply chain move to them instead. So PLEASE don't let anyone in the EU, Africa, South America, Canada, Central America, or Indonesia see this comment! We only have to keep this secret for another 49.9 years!
P.S. I'm not joking. That's is the strategy he's following.