4 ms·

(deleted)

by ulfw 8y ago

(deleted)

munk-a 8y ago
I mean, the current administration was elected on a platform of "America First" so, what did you think would happen? I think the US has been self-centered for quite some time, and there was a hilarious thread in a different article that went into the idea that America is the world-policeman that everyone wants but... yea, for equal treatment and to avoid regulatory capture - one needs to avoid that dying empire.
- ulfw 8y ago
  It's always been America First. It's becoming a mindset of "America Only". That's the problem.
- gumby 8y ago
  The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Protectionism (in this form) has never been a good policy, but it's always quite appealing to the protected companies - and when companies have the ability to sway elections (money in politics) then you can reasonably expect quite a lot of it to be going on.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    >> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end all W.T.O.-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft,” Mr. Lighthizer said." As a US citizen I don't see anything controversial about this stance.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company that is producing substandard products that have gotten people killed - I don't see how you could mentally position yourself to be alright with this. The general idea of protectionism is less controversial - I think it is generally bad[1] due to the economic effects of it. But if you're in favor of protectionism you can check any claim you have to free-market economics or de-regulation for growth at the door, protectionism is basically the Ur-form of regulatory capture and state-capitalism so being pro-Boeing subsidies and then claiming that the US becoming "socialist" is terrible is just logically inconsistent. [1] I'd leave the notable exception of when it's used to specifically stimulate economic sector growth - propping up a robotics company in TN to create a labour pool that enables other companies to grow out of the labour availability is a pretty good usage.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        >> Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company Didn't read any further. Boeing is not a "failing company".
    - wavefunction 8y ago
      That presumes that Trump and his disastrous trade-war has actually accomplished anything. It seems to me that China just gave him some window-dressing he can use to try to save face. I don't think China needs forced tech-transfers anymore, for one example. An easy shiny thing to present to someone with a limited analytical mind.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        >> It seems to me that China just gave him some window-dressing This form of cognitive dissonance is called "mind reading". You should look it up, unless you're a member of the negotiation team and have direct knowledge of the negotiations.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "America First" ... "US has been self-centered for quite some time" Anyone who suggests that France is not 'France first' or that Switzerland is not 'Switzerland first' etc. etc. has not been paying attention.
  - fastball 8y ago
    Lies. Europe obviously cares more about the rest of the world than they do about themselves. /s
    - munk-a 8y ago
      One of these political entities has accepted significantly more refugees from a war caused by the US - and it certainly ain't America.
      - lurker213 8y ago
        that seems pretty stupid of them doesn't it?
    - masonic 8y ago
      Just ask their former African colonies.
      - AntiTechTechie 8y ago
        Who are now their current residents and "citizens"
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gumby 8y ago
I like the part where they complain bitterly that people they called stupid, lazy leeches won't go along with boycotts of, say, Iran or Huawei, just because they were told to. I learnt in the third grade that that approach doesn't work.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Nations are economic competitors, it's really naive to put this in terms of 'selfish / confrontational'. All nations are 'selfish' in direct trade terms. In terms of Geopolitics, there's an enormous degree of material goodwill added by the US following the WW2 and the creation of the NWO and not all of it is 'repaid' to them. The entire framework of global trade relies on the US, even today. Most of the free world still depends on the US for defence, at least partially and in some very 'lynchpin' ways. The US's negotiations with China are reasonable. The negotiating positions on refiguring NAFTA were mostly reasonable, although I don't think it will make a difference. And FYI it's the EU that's constantly skittish, changing their minds, and arbitrarily taxing and back-taxing US companies often for their own, self directed problems (i.e. Irish/Dutch/Luxembourg taxation). Even though Donald Trump is a huge political jerk, making noise for the sake of making noise, there's little on the table that is entirely unjust. The 'bad noise' is mostly rhetoric.

(deleted)

by ulfw 8y ago

(deleted)

I mean, the current administration was elected on a platform of "America First" so, what did you think would happen? I think the US has been self-centered for quite some time, and there was a hilarious thread in a different article that went into the idea that America is the world-policeman that everyone wants but... yea, for equal treatment and to avoid regulatory capture - one needs to avoid that dying empire.

ulfw 8y ago
It's always been America First. It's becoming a mindset of "America Only". That's the problem.
gumby 8y ago
The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"
- munk-a 8y ago
  Protectionism (in this form) has never been a good policy, but it's always quite appealing to the protected companies - and when companies have the ability to sway elections (money in politics) then you can reasonably expect quite a lot of it to be going on.
- m0zg 8y ago
  >> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end all W.T.O.-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft,” Mr. Lighthizer said." As a US citizen I don't see anything controversial about this stance.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company that is producing substandard products that have gotten people killed - I don't see how you could mentally position yourself to be alright with this. The general idea of protectionism is less controversial - I think it is generally bad[1] due to the economic effects of it. But if you're in favor of protectionism you can check any claim you have to free-market economics or de-regulation for growth at the door, protectionism is basically the Ur-form of regulatory capture and state-capitalism so being pro-Boeing subsidies and then claiming that the US becoming "socialist" is terrible is just logically inconsistent. [1] I'd leave the notable exception of when it's used to specifically stimulate economic sector growth - propping up a robotics company in TN to create a labour pool that enables other companies to grow out of the labour availability is a pretty good usage.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      >> Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company Didn't read any further. Boeing is not a "failing company".
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    That presumes that Trump and his disastrous trade-war has actually accomplished anything. It seems to me that China just gave him some window-dressing he can use to try to save face. I don't think China needs forced tech-transfers anymore, for one example. An easy shiny thing to present to someone with a limited analytical mind.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      >> It seems to me that China just gave him some window-dressing This form of cognitive dissonance is called "mind reading". You should look it up, unless you're a member of the negotiation team and have direct knowledge of the negotiations.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"America First" ... "US has been self-centered for quite some time" Anyone who suggests that France is not 'France first' or that Switzerland is not 'Switzerland first' etc. etc. has not been paying attention.
- fastball 8y ago
  Lies. Europe obviously cares more about the rest of the world than they do about themselves. /s
  - munk-a 8y ago
    One of these political entities has accepted significantly more refugees from a war caused by the US - and it certainly ain't America.
    - lurker213 8y ago
      that seems pretty stupid of them doesn't it?
  - masonic 8y ago
    Just ask their former African colonies.
    - AntiTechTechie 8y ago
      Who are now their current residents and "citizens"

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gumby 8y ago

I like the part where they complain bitterly that people they called stupid, lazy leeches won't go along with boycotts of, say, Iran or Huawei, just because they were told to. I learnt in the third grade that that approach doesn't work.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Nations are economic competitors, it's really naive to put this in terms of 'selfish / confrontational'. All nations are 'selfish' in direct trade terms. In terms of Geopolitics, there's an enormous degree of material goodwill added by the US following the WW2 and the creation of the NWO and not all of it is 'repaid' to them. The entire framework of global trade relies on the US, even today. Most of the free world still depends on the US for defence, at least partially and in some very 'lynchpin' ways. The US's negotiations with China are reasonable. The negotiating positions on refiguring NAFTA were mostly reasonable, although I don't think it will make a difference. And FYI it's the EU that's constantly skittish, changing their minds, and arbitrarily taxing and back-taxing US companies often for their own, self directed problems (i.e. Irish/Dutch/Luxembourg taxation). Even though Donald Trump is a huge political jerk, making noise for the sake of making noise, there's little on the table that is entirely unjust. The 'bad noise' is mostly rhetoric.