Watch the U.S. back down to avoid war with China

[HomerJS]

The TPP is no longer in effect. So, mentioning it is meaningless. It's the same as an American exclaiming: "We treat Blacks equally. We have a Voting Rights Act." (Which has been gutted)

The U.S. and the Chinese navies have been embroiled in non-lethal battles of chicken for a few years now, according to a few book authors who focused on a future Pacific Naval War. Do you really think economic treaties scare Beijing?

They know most in the U.S. are afraid of a real Pacific war. This is why you keep harkening back to the TPP as if that defunct agreement really means something to China now.

Chinese leaders know they have planted so many spies in the U.S. that they have their pick of folks in technology, intelligence and finance who are greedy, selfish and would gladly sell out the U.S. for millions and a safe haven.

I won’t bring it up anymore after saying it’s creation showed strength against China. Dissolving it showed weakness

 

[Lezunto]

Your far-right fantasies only carry weight with your like-minded fellow fascists. Everyone else thinks you're a nut.

I'm a Democrat. I'm just rational. You're the ones who think you can curse and insult your way to dominance.

Why don't you accept there are millions of folks in this country who are Democrats who are not drama queens?

 

[IronWing]

I'm a Democrat. I'm just rational. You're the ones who think you can curse and insult your way to dominance.

Why don't you accept there are millions of folks in this country who are Democrats who are not drama queens?

Ah, yes, another Democrat who spends his days on internet forums pushing fascist propaganda. I think you're just another rapidly dulling fascist troll.

 

[Lezunto]

I won’t bring it up anymore after saying it’s creation showed strength against China. Dissolving it showed weakness

I am not certain any international economic treaty shows strength. They are basically gifts to corporations and bankers.

NAFTA was an early effort to shorten the supply chain from Asia to Mexico. It was great for automakers and other consumer appliance manufacturers, but not so much for U.S. factory and electronics workers.

I recall Faberware closing its Bronx, N.Y., stainless steel cookware plant and hotfooting it to Mexico. This was a time when a lot of U.S. companies moved their operations south of the border. During the 1990's, some economists estimated that 50% of the TV's sold in the U.S. were made in the Maquiladora plants in Mexico.

To an old municipal union shop steward, it was disheartening to write so many U.S.-Mexico news stories because they involved talking to laid off workers. I just do not think any trade pact would make Beijing think twice.

I have seen the stories about China's Ghost Cities caused by over-financing and real estate miscues. But I do not believe this will deter China's military. China really wants Taiwan. At this point, it's a national ego thing.

Some of you may be aware that the new breed of Chinese Naval Captain want to prove themselves and are eager for a confrontation with the U.S.

I guess, we shall see. That's why I asked the question. To see what others thought.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Automation has done more to kill jobs than offshoring.
Not to say that offshoring hasn't created its own issues related to geopolitics and supply chain disruptions, but lots of jobs would have been gone no matter where production did or did not move.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I used to believe in that rational calculation until Russia invaded Ukraine.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine really supports rational calculation more than it does not:

- Ukraine has huge oil reserves. Russia is basically a giant gas station for Europe and doesn't really have any other meaningful industry to speak of.

- Their puppet just lost power: no more golden calfs like disrupting NATO, arbitrarily withdrawing from treaties like JCPOA and sanctions being slapped back on Iranian oil to Europe, no more aggressive anti-china policy to keep pressure off the eastern flank, no more disrupting weapons supplies to the Ukrainian military fighting separatists on the Eastern Front.

- He just got replaced by a guy that is pro-europeanization of Ukraine, bringing it into NATO/EU, which all of course = Europe having another source of LNG and Oil than Russia. Basically Iran all over again.

- Biden legitimately appeared weak, with the cluster F that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, this guy kept claiming he was the elder statesman and adult in the room, then his admin bungles that withdrawal so shockingly badly that it shakes everyone's confidence in their ability to respond to world events.

- Russia would have likely preferred to keep slow rolling a much weaker Ukraine after a second Trump term, but when that disappeared and it looked like they were facing a headwind and a complete collapse of their entire Ukraine strategy they went in with both feet on the gamble that Ukraine's armed forces and government were not up to snuff, Europe would not risk a disruption to their gas supply, and the US would basically be the US as it is most of the time and there would be some harsh language without much actual teeth.

They happened to be exactly wrong on all fronts, but they're still slowly but surely winning the war of attrition and we'll see if Europe folds when the German middle class is heating their homes with hyperinflated marks in the winter.

 

[fskimospy]

The TPP is no longer in effect. So, mentioning it is meaningless. It's the same as an American exclaiming: "We treat Blacks equally. We have a Voting Rights Act." (Which has been gutted)

The U.S. and the Chinese navies have been embroiled in non-lethal battles of chicken for a few years now, according to a few book authors who focused on a future Pacific Naval War. Do you really think economic treaties scare Beijing?

They know most in the U.S. are afraid of a real Pacific war. This is why you keep harkening back to the TPP as if that defunct agreement really means something to China now.

Chinese leaders know they have planted so many spies in the U.S. that they have their pick of folks in technology, intelligence and finance who are greedy, selfish and would gladly sell out the U.S. for millions and a safe haven.

While the TPP is not in effect something very similar is. Amusingly enough China is attempting to join it so clearly they care.

 

[fskimospy]

Automation has done more to kill jobs than offshoring.
Not to say that offshoring hasn't created its own issues related to geopolitics and supply chain disruptions, but lots of jobs would have been gone no matter where production did or did not move.

Offshoring essentially means the product can be made more efficiently elsewhere. While there are some cases where other needs trump efficiency by default we should want the most efficient process possible.

Productivity increases (meaning: efficiency) is what has allowed humans to escape the Malthusian Trap, it’s the single greatest thing we can do to improve the sum total of human welfare.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Offshoring essentially means the product can be made more efficiently elsewhere. While there are some cases where other needs trump efficiency by default we should want the most efficient process possible.

Productivity increases (meaning: efficiency) is what has allowed humans to escape the Malthusian Trap, it’s the single greatest thing we can do to improve the sum total of human welfare.

I agree, with an asterisk. And that qsterisk is that we should do something for displaced workers, not just give them the middle finger.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, with an asterisk. And that qsterisk is that we should do something for displaced workers, not just give them the middle finger.

I 1000% agree!

We shouldn’t do things in worse ways just to give people jobs. We should take advantage of our new wealth to help those hurt by advances.

 

[ivwshane]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine really supports rational calculation more than it does not:

- Ukraine has huge oil reserves. Russia is basically a giant gas station for Europe and doesn't really have any other meaningful industry to speak of.

- Their puppet just lost power: no more golden calfs like disrupting NATO, arbitrarily withdrawing from treaties like JCPOA and sanctions being slapped back on Iranian oil to Europe, no more aggressive anti-china policy to keep pressure off the eastern flank, no more disrupting weapons supplies to the Ukrainian military fighting separatists on the Eastern Front.

- He just got replaced by a guy that is pro-europeanization of Ukraine, bringing it into NATO/EU, which all of course = Europe having another source of LNG and Oil than Russia. Basically Iran all over again.

- Biden legitimately appeared weak, with the cluster F that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, this guy kept claiming he was the elder statesman and adult in the room, then his admin bungles that withdrawal so shockingly badly that it shakes everyone's confidence in their ability to respond to world events.

- Russia would have likely preferred to keep slow rolling a much weaker Ukraine after a second Trump term, but when that disappeared and it looked like they were facing a headwind and a complete collapse of their entire Ukraine strategy they went in with both feet on the gamble that Ukraine's armed forces and government were not up to snuff, Europe would not risk a disruption to their gas supply, and the US would basically be the US as it is most of the time and there would be some harsh language without much actual teeth.

They happened to be exactly wrong on all fronts, but they're still slowly but surely winning the war of attrition and we'll see if Europe folds when the German middle class is heating their homes with hyperinflated marks in the winter.

I agree except with the bolded. Biden’s apparent weakness was caused directly by trump, other than that, I can’t think I of a single military withdrawal that went better for us than what happened in Afghanistan. Especially when you consider that the afghan government we helped build completely collapsed (and one can make a pretty strong argument that the collapse was directly due to trumps words).

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I agree except with the bolded. Biden’s apparent weakness was caused directly by trump, other than that, I can’t think I of a single military withdrawal that went better for us than what happened in Afghanistan. Especially when you consider that the afghan government we helped build completely collapsed (and one can make a pretty strong argument that the collapse was directly due to trumps words).

- I know I'm just being an asshole but you disagree with yourself?

 

[ivwshane]

- I know I'm just being an asshole but you disagree with yourself?

Dick!

 

[Lezunto]

While the TPP is not in effect something very similar is. Amusingly enough China is attempting to join it so clearly they care.

I was unaware of this latest move by China.

I am just happy the U.S. Navy is sending warships through the Taiwan Strait.

 

[darkswordsman17]

If we could get all of our manufacturing back home it could be a different scenario and we would be beholden to no one.

Isolationism doesn't fix shit. We tried that, and then saw that us sitting on our asses was going to let the Nazis possibly take over Europe, and possibly elsewhere while Japan was taking over Asia.

We'll always be beholden to someone (but they unto us as well). Arguably, it actually is why there was such relative worldwide peace for a few decades there. With regards to China specifically, because we depended on China to produce our stuff cheaply, and China depended on us for the money to keep growing, we'd have to be idiots to wage war against each other.

Bringing all manufacturing back here won't magically fix the issues we're now facing. And it makes it much more likely that we give up our ability to positively influence things elsewhere, not to mention stave off war.

For a good idea of what you're wanting, look at Russia, whom is basically condensing the timeframe for the things you want.

Forty years? I think it’s been much longer than that. At least since Nixon and our involvement in the Middle East.

If oil is what you mean, we were doing that shit in WWII so it predates Nixon even by decades. And arguably that started because of the British doing that shit even earlier (in like the 19teens I think).

You obviously knew what they meant, how there was a very clear marked change to how things operated in the 80s under the "greed is good" asshole Republican policies whoring the country out to corporate profits above all else.

 

[HomerJS]

I am not certain any international economic treaty shows strength. They are basically gifts to corporations and bankers.

NAFTA was an early effort to shorten the supply chain from Asia to Mexico. It was great for automakers and other consumer appliance manufacturers, but not so much for U.S. factory and electronics workers.

I recall Faberware closing its Bronx, N.Y., stainless steel cookware plant and hotfooting it to Mexico. This was a time when a lot of U.S. companies moved their operations south of the border. During the 1990's, some economists estimated that 50% of the TV's sold in the U.S. were made in the Maquiladora plants in Mexico.

To an old municipal union shop steward, it was disheartening to write so many U.S.-Mexico news stories because they involved talking to laid off workers. I just do not think any trade pact would make Beijing think twice.

I have seen the stories about China's Ghost Cities caused by over-financing and real estate miscues. But I do not believe this will deter China's military. China really wants Taiwan. At this point, it's a national ego thing.

Some of you may be aware that the new breed of Chinese Naval Captain want to prove themselves and are eager for a confrontation with the U.S.

I guess, we shall see. That's why I asked the question. To see what others thought.

Did Republicans have a better idea. Answer that instead of shitting on TTP.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Automation has done more to kill jobs than offshoring.
Not to say that offshoring hasn't created its own issues related to geopolitics and supply chain disruptions, but lots of jobs would have been gone no matter where production did or did not move.

HUh? The evidence shows that those that invest in automation hire more people, not less (unless you are in management). Automation increases productivity which is a must to keep up with demand.

Does Automation Result In More Jobs Being Created?

The traditional narrative is that automation will inevitably result in job losses, but new data reminds us that the opposite is actually the case, with firms who invest in robots increasing their headcount

www.forbes.com

 

[JTsyo]

And there's already a huge amount of that being placed in US locations. Phoenix area is getting a GIANT TSMC facility that will be operational in ~'24.

I wonder if China is looking forward to that. With domestic production of semiconductors, Taiwan's importance will drop some for the US. If the US becomes more isolatioist, then that might give China the opportunity it needs.

 

[senseamp]

Nothing will happen either way, except sternly worded statements or not.

 

[m8d]

I am not certain any international economic treaty shows strength. They are basically gifts to corporations and bankers.

NAFTA was an early effort to shorten the supply chain from Asia to Mexico. It was great for automakers and other consumer appliance manufacturers, but not so much for U.S. factory and electronics workers.

I recall Faberware closing its Bronx, N.Y., stainless steel cookware plant and hotfooting it to Mexico. This was a time when a lot of U.S. companies moved their operations south of the border. During the 1990's, some economists estimated that 50% of the TV's sold in the U.S. were made in the Maquiladora plants in Mexico.

To an old municipal union shop steward, it was disheartening to write so many U.S.-Mexico news stories because they involved talking to laid off workers. I just do not think any trade pact would make Beijing think twice.

I have seen the stories about China's Ghost Cities caused by over-financing and real estate miscues. But I do not believe this will deter China's military. China really wants Taiwan. At this point, it's a national ego thing.

Some of you may be aware that the new breed of Chinese Naval Captain want to prove themselves and are eager for a confrontation with the U.S.

I guess, we shall see. That's why I asked the question. To see what others thought.

 

[Brovane]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine really supports rational calculation more than it does not:

- Ukraine has huge oil reserves. Russia is basically a giant gas station for Europe and doesn't really have any other meaningful industry to speak of.

- Their puppet just lost power: no more golden calfs like disrupting NATO, arbitrarily withdrawing from treaties like JCPOA and sanctions being slapped back on Iranian oil to Europe, no more aggressive anti-china policy to keep pressure off the eastern flank, no more disrupting weapons supplies to the Ukrainian military fighting separatists on the Eastern Front.

- He just got replaced by a guy that is pro-europeanization of Ukraine, bringing it into NATO/EU, which all of course = Europe having another source of LNG and Oil than Russia. Basically Iran all over again.

- Biden legitimately appeared weak, with the cluster F that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, this guy kept claiming he was the elder statesman and adult in the room, then his admin bungles that withdrawal so shockingly badly that it shakes everyone's confidence in their ability to respond to world events.

- Russia would have likely preferred to keep slow rolling a much weaker Ukraine after a second Trump term, but when that disappeared and it looked like they were facing a headwind and a complete collapse of their entire Ukraine strategy they went in with both feet on the gamble that Ukraine's armed forces and government were not up to snuff, Europe would not risk a disruption to their gas supply, and the US would basically be the US as it is most of the time and there would be some harsh language without much actual teeth.

They happened to be exactly wrong on all fronts, but they're still slowly but surely winning the war of attrition and we'll see if Europe folds when the German middle class is heating their homes with hyperinflated marks in the winter.

The fact they were wrong on all fronts tells me that they didn't perform a rational calculation of what could happen. Now they are just doubling down on stupid as their ammo depots explode.

 

[Brovane]

I don't recall China really having any foundries on the level of TSMC. My understanding is that the major players in the foundry space are TSMC, Samsung, GlobalFoundries, and Intel. China tends to handle logic boards (i.e. they'd put the Samsung-produced Nvidia GPU on their PCB) and other integration-related tasks.

TSMC has FAB's in China with Chinese partner companies.

 

[Aikouka]

TSMC has FAB's in China with Chinese partner companies.

Thank you for the correction! I'm assuming that these aren't using the latest processes? Given the track record of Chinese companies "borrowing" technology/designs/concepts that they're paid to produce, I can't imagine that TSMC would want to give away their industry-leading secrets to someone that would abuse them.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The fact they were wrong on all fronts tells me that they didn't perform a rational calculation of what could happen. Now they are just doubling down on stupid as their ammo depots explode.

-IMO Russia knows that without their Oil/Gas, they're a nobody. It's basically 100% of their leverage and access on the international stage outside of nukes, which are an all or nothing sort of thing.

They saw their options as either a war that would *hopefully* resolve relatively quickly or irrelevance on the world stage, and they chose the war.

I don't see it as *irrational* when the decision makers aren't really in any danger and view their populace as a resource to be expended for their own gain. Monstrous, yes, but not irrational.

 

[Brovane]

-IMO Russia knows that without their Oil/Gas, they're a nobody. It's basically 100% of their leverage and access on the international stage outside of nukes, which are an all or nothing sort of thing.

They saw their options as either a war that would *hopefully* resolve relatively quickly or irrelevance on the world stage, and they chose the war.

I don't see it as *irrational* when the decision makers aren't really in any danger and view their populace as a resource to be expended for their own gain. Monstrous, yes, but not irrational.

Russia wasn't in danger of losing access to market for their Oil/Gas before the invasion. Now after the invasion they losing access to sell Gas/Oil and Western oil companies that had been helping Russia pump this Oil have pulled out of Russia. They have guaranteed their irrelevance.