Really doubt that any tariffs was needed to force the world to align against China. China was doing a great job of that on their own by their actions in the Spratly Islands (territorial encroachment), their treatment of minorities, their support for Russia in Ukraine, their control of foreign firms requiring technology transfer to do business in China, their lack of rule of law meaning they can lock up anyone they want anytime, and so on.
Ugh. Before I got to your last sentence I was thinking "OMG this is what the US is doing right now!"
And it doesn't look like any country will be winning. Certainly there are some individual people who will be enriched, but at what cost to the nation as a whole?
If 2017 and covid were any indications here more automation and AI would be used for those new requirements. And from what I've told it scales up quickly with minimal "training" needed. I know several business owners during covid who would have gladly gone to automation if it were possible. Unions may not like it but its definitely the trend across many industries.
I'll say this. Something that seems to get lost in all this is that interconnectedness and codependent reliance on other nations is ALSO essential for national defense. This is one of the goals of the soft diplomacy that is currently being dismantled. But it's also one of the benefits of free trade. Nations that depend on one another are vastly less likely to go to war with one another. China knows this and, as the manufacturing center of the world, can get away with spending half (as a percentage of GDP) of what the US does on defense because it knows that there isn't a country in the world that can afford to invade and take out, well, the manufacturing center of the world. Trade is critical to national security.
Not true at all. Quite the opposite. Trade dependency is one of the things that can increase security even if the trade partner has different values and objectives. The trading partner could have a completely different view on wealth distribution or religion, but if there is a mutual dependency on trade, that makes conflict vastly less likely. Look at mainland china government, South Korea, Japan, England, Canada, etc etc etc. They have very different values and objectives, yet have had decade after decade without major military conflict because they are active trading partners. From your list, what's the one that doesn't actively trade: North Korea. Which is the one that is a wildcard and/or threat? north korea.
I'm not sure if you consider that a good thing, but I don't.
Very good point about KSA. Very different goals and objectives, but not really a military threat. Or, at a minimum, a second or third tier military threat that is kept largely under control precisely because they are so dependent on trade.
Uh, no.
... And yet the average American will usually have much more in common with an Iranian than a Saudi
(at least in my experience)Did someone tell you all this had to be rational?... And yet the average American will usually have much more in common with an Iranian than a Saudi
... And yet the average American will usually have much more in common with an Iranian than a Saudi
... And yet the average American will usually have much more in common with an Iranian than a Saudi
And keep immigrant slaves in their homes and abuse them, sometimes killing them with impunity. Whilst also treating any non-saudi (or visiting wealthy expat) like a 10th class citizen. And also imprisoning, torturing (or chopping up) dissidents.
And yet it didn't stop them from unanimously winning the chair position for UN Women's Rights Commission last month.
You're absolutely right about that. And that's the unfortunate and arbitrary dynamic I think that poem sought to capture.
Regarding the article, there's a lot of good info there. The one thing that will somewhat nullify about 75% of the reasons why it shouldn't be done is: time. We don't have the equipment, we don't have mold makers, we don't have people with the training, etc. can all be addressed given a long enough time span. Bringing in machines, having mold makers pop up to fill that gap, building additional power plants, having a workforce trained to build semiconductors, etc. are all things than can be done inside a decade. So those points are certainly obstacles to address in the long-term, but bringing back some factories in the first few years doesn't generally require a complete overhaul of the American infrastructure. Trying to strip EVERYTHING that we have produced in China or other LCCs would certainly be a calamity. The question then becomes: how long are we willing do endure the tariffs and how steadfast will the commitment to onshoring chosen industries be? As mentioned in the article, companies aren't willing to pony up hundreds of millions in capital investment if the POTUS is changing his mind every other week on what tariff rates will be or whether they exist at all.
That smells like a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Not quite. 2018 boeing parts were kind of taken out of PMA - world and brought under boeing production certificate. I'm gonna bet a warm diet walmart cola that the FAA still requires the same process, just done by boeing.
The one child policy in China was a fail. My wife, born during the one child era had 1 brother and 2 sisters. Her parents did pay a fine, 10 woven baskets (being poor in China is still a thing). Unless you were a CCP party member, it was not taken seriously.
At least according to the Wikipedia page on the subject, no country has UBI today. There have been (and are) experiments. Alaska has "partial basic income" but it's nowhere near enough to really call it UBI.
I don't think everyone will help out. People are lazy. Smart, driven people can make extra money if they want. And if someone doesn't want to, they don't have to. QOL won't be great but they'll survive... And we won't need any more bureaucracy around welfare/SNAP/etc because everyone gets it and there's no paperwork to demonstrate a need, no staff trying to help you get off it, etc.
I'm not at all saying this would be done around the world... Just here, as one solution to all of the jobs that are going to go away with more AI and automation.
I question whether there was a "one child policy". All my friends and colleagues there, the oldest I know being in their 50s, have siblings. I'm told it was only "enforced" in some places.
Yes, being poor there seems to be still a thing, based on things I have seen. The best explanation I've heard was that the "one child policy" only applied to some places, but not the cities. I recognize my "sample" probably isn't representative of the population, being mostly scientists.
