Trump orders companies to find alternative to China

[PC2]

I'm pro-Chinese people, but anti-CCP...

Let's contrast their culture of tradition and conformity with our culture of artistic freedom, even if it critiques the religious, governmental, or PC orthodoxy of the time. This is important for the West in order to keep dominating global cultural exports.

Let's take all their brute force labor and make it obsolete with advanced software and engineering tech. This will suck for the poorest half of Chinese laborers, but the sooner we break our dependency on low-skill brute labor, the sooner we can be self-reliant within the group of liberal democracies.

[Machismo]

Aye, the best parts of capitalism adhere to the old words "A rising tide lifts all ships". By helping their economy, we stem the tide of illegal immigrants, take some small measure of human capital away from the cartels, and bring our own worker's rights forward because now the option of hiring undocumented labor is significantly smaller which improves the market in favor of the worker.

And yet, this is just one of many examples where Trump is attacking capitalism... along with his calls to limit legal immigration. This was never about capitalism, it was always about keeping out brown people for the Trumpsters.

- - - Updated - - -

This is yet another attempt by Trump to attack capitalism. Why do self-proclaimed conservatives support him?

[s_bushido]

our culture of artistic freedom, even if it critiques the religious, governmental, or PC orthodoxy of the time

lol

Unless someone makes a movie about good ol' boys having to survive being hunted by the rich elites, amirite?

[PC2]

This is yet another attempt by Trump to attack capitalism.

Point being? Trump is a right winger, that means he prioritizes national security to the point that there could be a couple cases that infringe on pure capitalism. If capitalism was the highest priority for Trump than he would have run as a libertarian, not as a right wing Republican.

Why do self-proclaimed conservatives support him?

Depends on the conservative and what they want to conserve. It may be the case that Trump can't 100% conserve something but will still do so better than Hillary. Or Biden if he is the next candidate.

[Omega10]

Point being? Trump is a right winger, that means he prioritizes national security to the point that there could be a couple cases that infringe on pure capitalism. If capitalism was the highest priority for Trump than he would have run as a libertarian, not as a right wing Republican.



Depends on the conservative and what they want to conserve. It may be the case that Trump can't 100% conserve something but will still do so better than Hillary. Or Biden if he is the next candidate.

I can't believe you just wrote that. The Tea Party, which is still kind of a thing, used to quote I think it was Ben Franklin, something like "Those who trade liberty for security get, and deserve, neither." What you wrote is EXACTLY the opposite of what conservatism meant just 10 years ago.

You are saying that your principles are subject to change to whatever is most convenient at any time.

[PC2]

lol

Unless someone makes a movie about good ol' boys having to survive being hunted by the rich elites, amirite?

I'm not saying our society has 100% artistic freedom, but pretty close.

Based on my Google search just now, that movie has very obvious depictions of homicidal 'liberal elites' hunting down obvious depictions of 'Trump supporters' who happen to be located in a 'quarry of deplorables'. lmao. This has nothing to do societal tolerance... That is just a plain dumbass film to make unless you are specifically wanting to portray Trump supporters as victims and liberal elites as utterly disconnected from the real world.

[Omega10]

I'm not saying our society has 100% artistic freedom, but pretty close.

Based on my Google search just now, that movie has very obvious depictions of homicidal 'liberal elites' hunting down obvious depictions of 'Trump supporters' who happen to be located in a 'quarry of deplorables'. lmao. This has nothing to do societal tolerance... That is just a plain dumbass film to make unless you are specifically wanting to portray Trump supporters as victims and liberal elites as utterly disconnected from the real world.

I think that IS the point of the movie. The point of the movie seems to be that liberal elites are vicious and evil, and that Trump supporters are heroic victims and good.

[s_bushido]

That is just a plain dumbass film to make unless you are specifically wanting to portray Trump supporters as victims and liberal elites as utterly disconnected from the real world.

Which, you know, was exactly what the trailer did.

[Zaydin]

Pretty sure Trump trying to dictate to private companies how to conduct their business is fascism.

[PC2]

I can't believe you just wrote that. The Tea Party, which is still kind of a thing, used to quote I think it was Ben Franklin, something like "Those who trade liberty for security get, and deserve, neither." What you wrote is EXACTLY the opposite of what conservatism meant just 10 years ago.

Yeah so you could say the Tea Party was 100% about their ideal of liberty, 0% about pragmatism, compromise, or trade-off. Obviously they were too purely idealistic to stay relevant. Liberty is cool and all, but if we don't have walls, and prevent violence, and have police that protect our property then "liberty" isn't all that great.

You are saying that your principles are subject to change to whatever is most convenient at any time.

No, principles can't be subject to change due to them being principles, but how accurately principles are reified in practice will depend on all the interacting variables and how good you are at holding a principle(s) constant in the face of entirely new variables.

I think that IS the point of the movie. The point of the movie seems to be that liberal elites are vicious and evil, and that Trump supporters are heroic victims and good.

Oh, it looks like a dumb movie regardless of the intention behind it. Anyways, art should not be censored or outlawed just because it can be considered insulting, non-realistic, problematic, or partisan.

In China most of their new art and cultural outputs are complete shit because by the time the artist butchers their original vision with all of the CCPs restrictions they have nothing except pre-canned characters and lyrical messages. Where in nothing that could possibly cast China in an imperfect light can be released. No amount of (purely) economic development is ever going to fix this massive cultural/creative deficit.

Pretty sure Trump trying to dictate to private companies how to conduct their business is fascism.

lol, the question is whether or not the best way to curb China is through the libertarian approach or letting there be a policy exception for countering Chinese misbehavior.

Here is a very simplified historically verified fact for you:

Nations that don't trade with each other tend to go to war with each other.

Another fact, nations of different categories, communist, fascist, or liberal democracy, tend to go to war with each other. While nations of the same kind tend to work with each other to replicate their political memes. So even if we avoid conflict at the level of trade, all that does is elevates the conflict to the two societal paradigms; liberal democracy vs state authoritarianism. Which we're not talking about two inert ways of life here. Conflict is inevitable, but since it is, may as well make it non-violent conflict.

[bbr]

Hong Kong is part of China, and Trump has tacitly endorsed China putting a stop to the protests therein, so it would absolutely affect Hong Kong.

No, "hong kong" is "in" china.
It's actually a self reliant state or country, depending how you look at it.

Chinese government has little to no say what happens in hong kong - and the hong kong people are very proud and protective of that state of living.

[Machismo]

Point being? Trump is a right winger, that means he prioritizes national security to the point that there could be a couple cases that infringe on pure capitalism. If capitalism was the highest priority for Trump than he would have run as a libertarian, not as a right wing Republican.



Depends on the conservative and what they want to conserve. It may be the case that Trump can't 100% conserve something but will still do so better than Hillary. Or Biden if he is the next candidate.

Great, then conservatives never again get to claim that they support capitalism. Thanks for agreeing with me. It's amazing how often "right wingers" seem to be supporting racism, and opposing capitalism, these days.

[Collegeguy]

Here is a very simplified historically verified fact for you:

Nations that don't trade with each other tend to go to war with each other.

Nonsense since China has been having economic warfare with all its trade partners for over 2 decades now.

[Skroe]

You seem very pessimistic about America's future.

On the other hand don't underestimate Europe. Marginalizing the EU will push Europe to be more aligned with China than the US, so this is bad strategically. From a practical note, the GDP of Europe is quite high, and Europe is not going away. While a lot of the influence that the US is losing is going to China, quite a bit of it is going to Europe. And Europe is showing that it can act independently of the US, and even do the opposite of what the US wants it to do at times.

I agree with your pessimism about the future of America. I can see a situation arising where Europe and China are the two major power centers of the world, with India and the US being strong enough to be counterweights to their power.

On the contrary, I'm extremely optimistic about America's future. But I think frankly, a lot of people are extremely ignorant of history. Fair warning, the below is going to get thick. Not for speed reading.

There is no real memory in this world. We are born. We learn from those who came before us. We live and gain life experiences. We pass it on. And then we die. Cycle repeats.

It is true the 20th and 21st centuries have seen unprecedented technological and scientific advancement and global integration. But that is about the only thing that is different from the prior 2000 years. And even then it's a matter of scale.

Consider "the world". What is the world to us. Well actually the entire planet Earth in our case. To people living in the comparative "developed world" 150 years ago, the world was meant as mostly Europe, and colonial holdings in the Americas, (later) Africa and Asia. There were lots of fuzzy edges to the map of their world. To people living 500 years ago, the world pretty much meant all land within 2000 miles or so, and no more than 150 miles off shore. To the people living 1000 years ago in Europe, the world was Europe and Coastal North Africa and the Levant. To the Romans, the world was the Mediterranean rim, modern Span, modern France. Germania and Persia existed at the edge and "China" existed only at the very edge of understanding and in rumor.

This is not a digression. We are not the first people to think we've arrived at some privileged point in world history, where after much hardship our world is stable, and enduring and that the worst is behind us. We are the first to think that way of the entire actual planet Earth. But many civilizations, in their conception of what the "world" was thought they had reached a relative and enduring point of stability. One that would perpetuate forevermore.

It's never been true and probably never will be true. Because people are born, they live and then they die. And after a few generations everyone... the inheritors of other peoples property that was gained through suffering, forgets. The the human tragedy repeats itself again, and again and again.

Let's look at Europe. The European Union fancies itself as something new. It really is not. It is a modern attempt at an old idea: continental scale political, economic and social integration, development and stability. Europe has had many great settlements. Westphalia, Utrecht, Vienna, Versailles, Yalta. They've all eventually gave way to a new order. I'm pulling for Europe, but there is a good argument that in 30 years hence, we can add Maastricht 1992 to that list, when the EU gives way to a new order, as the Concert of Europe did. As the Holy Roman Empire did. As the Peace of Westphalia did.

Folks get fixated on climate change. They get fixated on our immediate needs like infrastructure, healthcare, JOBS!, and education. And they are important, because the person matters. Life is not pointless at all because human progress - and there is progress - depends on the incrimentalism that lots of people making small changes, make over large periods of time But people are born, they live, and then they die, and their successors who only have their stories to guide start to write their own, and invariably, suffer the same pitfalls and mistakes. 10 steps forward, followed by 9.92 steps back.

Nothing perpetuates. Francis Fukuyama's End of History essay was the wrongest thing ever written. The human condition... human history... is a cycle of creation, entertainment, decline, destruction, recreation. And people always think they got it right and have finally beat the cycle, but they never do.

We have not in fact, arrived at the final form of government, economics or international order. We're just in a stable plateau that started just after World War II. Just under 80 years. Various "worlds" have seen 80 year stretches of peace and relative plenty. And yet we arrogantly say that this peace, Pax Americana, is the most sustainable since the about 200 years of stability in Europe, 1800 years ago. If Pax American gets to 200, we'll be damn lucky it does.

But 80 years isn't 200 any more than 200 is eternal. 80 years is three life times.

The modern context, the World War II generation is fading into their final millions, and their grandchildren and great grandchildren have forgotten the lessons, if they listened to them at all. So we see rises in nationalism. We see a resurgence in great power conflict. We see economic disruption unseen since the 1930s because regulations put in place in response to those were removed. What is old is new again.

Let's extrapolate this to another 80 years? What about another 160? What about 500? I mean, does the lessons of the wars of 16th century Europe inform our current political discourse? Not at all. So why should we expect the lessons of World War I and World War II inform the political discourse of people born in the year 2000 when they're all 55 years old. Or people born in the 2070s. Or 2120s.

History is always followed by more history. And people are always learning the lessons their forebears already knew. Lessons that got lost between the then and the now.

Consider the metrics we use to measure how many Presidents, Prime Ministers, elected assemblies and governments as a whole are doing. GDP growth. Unemployment rates. Worker productivity. Industrial output. Inflation rate. Debt to GDP ratios. Current Account deficits. Credit Rating. Capital Flows. Foreign Direct Investment.

Conceptually, many of these have existed (though perhaps by different names) for hundreds or even thousands of years. Rome experienced hyperinflation for example. But the entire school of social and economic metrics that are at the very center of our political vocabulary became formalized in the couple decades before and then after World War II. Why? Because the purpose of governments after World War II became to provide for the welfare of its people, mostly through economic growth and building institutions that serviced the needs of rapidly growing populations. Before World War II, the principle purpose of governments was war and conquest and enriching a country's rulers through seizing of the property of others. Nationalism, as we think of it, grew in the 19th century starting with the Napoleonic Wars and fully matured in World War II. The concept of Nationalism too, being a historically new creation.

The United States is entering a New Cold War with China. In some number of decades there will be an outcome and a new order. After some decades following that, that will collapse, and the powerful states of that era will, by one means or another, decide what the successor order looks like. So it has been. So it will continue to be. Seemingly perpetual settlements lasting for a few life times. Maybe six or seven if we're lucky, but no more.

There will be major wars between global powers. There will be devastating tragedies. And there will be unexpected achievements and world changing events. We are not beyond that. We are in a lull as the past has died but the future has yet to fully be born. We, as a people have been here before time and time again.

So how can I say I'm optimistic about America? Because we're fairly ideally built to ride whatever the future brings. And yeah, America of the late 21st century will likely be a country we scarcely recognize - I mean abduct an American from 1919 and explain the modern world to them and you'll overwhelm them. But it will have gone through several evolutionary processes to succeed in the world of that era, as we have since our founding.

We keep evolving. We keep changing. We have a capacity to change that, coupled with our geographic isolation and natural resource blessings, put America on a bunker continent that will continue to serve it well. But change happens at such a slow speed, and our attention is pulled in so many ways, but it does happen and it's been an extraordinary source of strength compared to our peers and rivals who are menaced by cultural, religious and political intertia far more than we, limitations on natural resources, and worse, menacing neighbor states.

But there is no such thing as permanence in any social or political construct. For all we know, in 500 years hence, America could be operating under economics we scarcely can imagine now, and largely be based off world on the Moon and Mars, with "the continental United States" little more than what the Italian peninsula was to the Romans once they moved their capital to Byzantium... a dilapidated relic homeland, far less significant than our new home. Or America could not exist anymore, except in name, by a series of successor states each vying to be the Second America. Or maybe routine space travel never happens and America absorbs Canada, Mexico and Europe. And maybe their rivals of that age are a techno-fascist European polity that is as expansionist in the Atlantic as imperial Japan was in the Pacific. Who knows. We can scarcely imagine anymore than what a Islamic philosopher would see the future world like 1000 years ago. He probably would have seen the Caliphate spread to the entire globe, and certainly all of Europe. But the Islamic Golden Age had essentially just hit its zenith.

But then again, let's go back to the court of Queen Isabelle and King Ferdinand in 1491 and tell them that the continent their contracted explorer is about to discover, five hundred and thirty years hence, will be home to the most powerful country in the history of the world, victorious over two German Empires and the most powerful Russia ever, and now entering a period of global rivalry with China. China in 1491 was ruled by the Ming Dynasty, who were mostly concerned with the return of the Mongols, and about 100 years out from entering a long and sharp decline that would last 400 years.

So getting back to my post, the most sustainable America we can have is one that is constantly transformative, and does not bend too far over backwards to sustain status quos at the cost of future hardship. It anticipates future change and makes adaptations to a changing global environment.

Where the United States was going to end up with China was inevitable. It was clear in 2000. It was nothing less than arrogance to think that America, having arrived at the summit of global power, would be able to sit there uncontested forever. It is the nature of history to see that power challenged, just as it is the nature of history for the other many things we hoped were behind us to come back. The crucial mistake we made was to be so wedded to a fading order, we set ourselves up less than ideally to thrive in what comes next. Finally though, now, we are at last making the adjustments needed to do just that.

We should give up our relationship with China now, because the history we're walking into is one of fierce global rivalry to define the next order, that will last long after all we're dead. And provided we win that, the win is always temporary and will eventually give rise to a new rival or rivals.

Does that means we should not participate? Nobody has a choice. The United States tried staying out of it twice in the 20th century. Didn't work. Won't work next time either. Over the last 2000 years, "staying out of it" isn't a new idea either. Countries and kingdoms invariably get drawn in. We will. And nuclear weapons won't save us either. Those will be used again. Probably in our life time. Probably several times.

The only avenue is to not be attached, and be willing to pay short term costs for long term advantage. Yes, the end of the 1990s-era of globalization that, make no mistake, is happening now, has a severe cost to it. But other opportunities and history will come from it. Nothing lasts.

And then we die. And so do our children. And their children. And the whole thing starts all over again. Because we are only ever custodians. History is not a straight line. It is a bell curve mirrored across the X axis. And we always keep looping around.

[zenkai]

Yes I agree. But the sentiment - that the US should wind down it's economic relationship with China ASAP - is correct.

The free trading interconnected world the 90s gave birth to are are over and they aren't coming back. What the folks seeing the world purely economic lenses need to realize is that power, control and security historically have always superseded economic imperatives, and they're doing so again here.

The world is to be carved into basically two domains: the Chinese one and the American one. And between them is a weak international order. But the domains must have rigorously enforced edges to them and trying to straddle the two, or go from one to the other, must be made nearly impossible.

Big picture: the United States should not be in an economic relationship with the country seeking and actively doing the most to threaten the liberal world order.

If that means a weaker economy, less growth and poorer Americans... yeah that's just the way it is. The liberal world order won't be sold out so Americans can enjoy cheap televisions.

Donald Trump's an imbecile. But this process of economic decoupling should have happened back in 2005. American businesses got addicted to the easy money and easy growth China gave them.

The party is over.

I'm just amazed that I agree with SKroe for once

[Rennadrel]

So he's not gonna MAGA by forcing all those jobs that went to China to come back to America?

[announced]

No, I expect they will give full support for this, just like giving full support for talking with North Korea, even though they raked Obama over the coals for even hinting at it.

Expect lots of "Yeah, Apple, get your damn iphones outta China!"

Usually Trump will declare something nonsensical. and then his administration will work out the nuts and bolts. This is usually how it works and although it seems chaotic, most of the time it is not.

While Trump cannot order companies to drop China, he isn't wrong that we need to get rid of our dependence on them. Not relying on China is a good thing, and we should encourage the world to do so.

[Draco-Onis]

Usually Trump will declare something nonsensical. and then his administration will work out the nuts and bolts. This is usually how it works and although it seems chaotic, most of the time it is not.

While Trump cannot order companies to drop China, he isn't wrong that we need to get rid of our dependence on them. Not relying on China is a good thing, and we should encourage the world to do so.

ROFLMAO it is a shit show, Trump says something out of the blue contradicting his staff, his staff then scrambles to match him only to have him walk it back in public again (see the recent middle class tax cut). He does this shit on the fly on twitter then changes his mind there are so many examples.

On relying on China how about he stops making Trump products there? I mean if he feels so strongly about his how about he does it himself starting with the MAGA hats.

[Dontrike]

Usually Trump will declare something nonsensical. and then his administration will work out the nuts and bolts. This is usually how it works and although it seems chaotic, most of the time it is not.

You're right, they do such a bang up job on making chaos into law and order. Remember when they did that with the wall, healthcare, tax cuts, every single nonsense tweet, the trade war, every single fucked up thing he says about allies, saying he trusts other countries over his own intelligence agencies, says someone he hand picked is as much of a threat as China, and every other single dumbass thing he has said.

All of those went so well and nothing has gone wrong with any of it. You're so correct in that they made everything okay.

[Crispin]

Usually Trump will declare something nonsensical. and then his administration will work out the nuts and bolts. This is usually how it works and although it seems chaotic, most of the time it is not.

While Trump cannot order companies to drop China, he isn't wrong that we need to get rid of our dependence on them. Not relying on China is a good thing, and we should encourage the world to do so.

Not sure why the world should follow Trumps administration, fex the EU is not in a world power contest with China, and when the current US is as anti-EU as it is, there’s really no reason to adhere to our “ally”.