- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3443 Hour
- Reading permission
A: A tragedy of global proportions may ensue.|
B: But only after a new comedy?
A: What be that?
B: The USA, global hegemon of capitalism, becomes socialist in sentiment just when other countries become capitalistic in the practice that it has been selling religiously to all and sundry!
A: Ah, you have caught the trend. It's almost hypocritical, this sauce for goose not good as sauce for gander.
C: So it is a tragic comedy! But we must understand why it is happening.
B: Before you say anything, let us ponder why all the american nobel laureates in economics have not even uttered a pipsqueak on what he has been twittering and such. Cowards, no?
A: Errrh before getting into that, let us also wonder whether we shouldn't be even having this conversation....
D: Why so? Isn't it important to know how the elephant intends to trample over everyone else?
A: Ah, you forget discretion shall be the better part of valor. If we articulate all the negative points about what he looks intent on doing, he may just do them on the rationale those of his voters expecting him to do them would also be hearing what we are saying, thereby adding fuel to his Shir-Khan jungle fire.
D: But if we don't articulate all those points, he will not know he will be wrongly advised by his advisers who seem to have a xenophobic predilection irrationally and simplistically eclipsing the learning and leaning they parade they portray.
B: But in the dereliction of the US' nobel laureates on this heavy matter, it would be an equal dereliction on our part not to say anything now before he gets going on the economic rampage of the century.
A: Having almost just destroyed the global economy as recent as 2008, the US must show more concern and wisdom about what will be proposed since the world we live in is too integrated for one action of benefit to one not to ricochet negative reactions by others which will decimate that benefit soon enough to no one's gain in the end.
E: Let's go back to your original observation that the US has become more socialist. I can see how that has happened. All the while, US businesses and industries have championed ever higher returns on their capital investment; in short this was neoliberalism or profit chasing any which way and anywhere fancied, if you like. What seems to be happening now is there is a tectonic shift from neoliberalism or shareholder capitalism to stakeholder interest akin to corporate social responsibility for environmental protection.
B: Environmental protection? That's rich. He just blew the Kyoto protocol away. And if his new nuclear bombs don't turn this planet to rubble, his hyper-carbonized ionosphere will toast this planet. Note i said rubble and not ruble.
C: Let E continue, B. Please.
E: As i was trying to say, the election presaged a shift from market fundamentalism to some other new fundamentalism, mercifully not islamic but unmercifully equally insane instead.
A: I'm intrigued. Why do you say that?
E: First did he check how much of the job displacement was caused by robotics? All these years there has been a highly visible trend of US manufacturers vigorously automating their assembly lines.
C: Yes, and to add to E's point, he was also quoted as saying jobs can move between states so long as within US borders. But wouldn't US manufacturers have already done that if it was possible in the first place? Let's say the product that cannot be made in Missouri on account of price disadvantage can be made in Tennessee. Is he saying the Missouri american deserves less the american dream he is selling than the Tennessee american?
B: You got it, my good man. The essential issue is price gap. Wherever made in the US in any and all its states, the price of the product will be higher than made in other countries which are only coming up on lower wages and production costs in their curves of progress that has been the selling point of US capitalism. After all, that's why the return on capital has been ongoing strong all these decades of sacrifice by the poor workers in developing countries so that US fat-cats can grow the very income disparity from that of US workers that is the very cause of the turmoil soon to be bombed on those same poor workers again in the developing countries. Let's be honest, a capitalist in the beginning cannot pretend to be socialist in the end.
D: But we seem to be missing another point. Shall it be at the expense of the originator?
A: Wait a second there. It has been said that running a country is like running a closed system. In such a system, you can be protectionist about how you want to run the country. But businesses and industries have been made to be open systems. Hell, one and all have sunk trillions into that assumption. Now are you saying someone who runs a country can just overnight overturn everything and demand that the open system of global commerce, industry for that matter finance be made popularist by fiat and a stroke of the pen just because some fat land-lubbing low-productivity worker in Pennsylvania griped about not getting a job for a year before honestly asking his own employer the real reason he was doled out?
C: Hold on there. Blondie can artificially make it happen by erecting trade tariffs on imports and imposing discentives on offshoring. These will raise prices of imported products to domestic levels, thereby nullifying the price difference so that locals can buy local first, all the more when the supply chains will at the same time be made more local as well.
B: Let's say he or them do that. Which will be the countries affected?
E: Presumably those countries which run trade surpluses. The UK, Germany, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, China, even Taiwan part of China.
B: Ahah. How would Navarro and company tariff all those countries at the same time?
E: Bilateral agreements come to mind.
B: It's not so simple. In fact it is downright twisty. Are you saying he is going to make the USA displace the WTO? That will tear up the global trade system across all trading countries. It may even make an arbitration case to remove the US from market status. It will be international armageddon and don't you not believe it won't happen.
Let's get back to facts. Take your pick on the countries. Why not, say, Mexico and China? Now US manufacturing companies created 706,000 mexican workers and 753,000 chinese workers. The proportion to respective populations of those two countries alone is already telling the issue is less about China than about some racist xenophobia. Blondie's argument is that those jobs were taken away from US workers. Gawd, that total of 1.456 million is but 0.4% of the US population of 320 million. Let's humor him further. He added that there were 96 million jobless americans. Against a bullish job market, how did he get that number? Again, that is but 1.5% of that so-called jobless number. So what is he talkin'?
E: I think we may conclude he is just trying to play brinkmanship after falling into his own Thucydides trap of thinking a well-meaning and progressive nation on the rise has no claim to rise further against a US as ruling power even when one and all have realized the US should abandon its imperialist ambitions which has sundered so many nations through prosecution of wars.
C: I see that too. After all, aren't conflicts on the road to amicable solution wherever US imperialist interests have stepped aside, whereas more conflicts and suffering have conflared and conflated everywhere it steps in to flex its schoolyard bully bull-doggish muscles?
A: The US should exercise some testicular fortitude to admit it has been wrong in so many regards and stop putting the blame on others.
B: It is strange how a country that supports the jews can turn on those from another country associated in quality of achievements with the same, haven't you noticed?
C: But let's for argument sake say he and his ilk press on and make those changes...
B: Ok, you want to reduce trade surplus. Sell more of the stuff the other side needs. If they need technologies, why not? That those will be used for military purpose somewhere in the future? To whose end? If your reason to allow them to continue selling to you lower priced products so that your countrymen can achieve a lifestyle faster makes you a good buyer in their eyes, how would they going to war with you enable that to continue? Which country this time around would go to war with its preferred buyers? Nuts!
C: Wait a second, it just occurred to me that what will happen is that he will spike inflation in the US. He will need to print more US notes. What does anyone here think will be the effect on their respective US dollar reserves should they comply to shore up their currencies so as to fend off his other accusation of money manipulation?
D: Do you know even a simple country like China has lost some twenty five percent of her US dollar reserves burned to shore up her currency and Blondie has the nerve to ignore that and label her a money manipulator of keeping her currency low?! Where's my spittoon?