This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I dunno. I would have a stronger opinion of this if I considered myself more economically literate. But the basic strategy that seems to be shaping up, as reported, of essentially forcing countries to choose between the US and China does make sense. We'll see if he's able to pull it off.
I don't really think that's true. Keep in mind that the press has sat on really big stories in the past at the request of the executive branch. If (as has been rumored) China was planning to attack Taiwan - and this precipitated some frantic economic maneuvers - I could definitely see "us" being unaware of the story. I don't hold that theory strongly but it's been in the back of my mind.
Why would you use this as an example? (This keeps happening, to me, I swear!)
Almost certainly, Havana Syndrome is real and is being covered up by the US government to smooth over relations with foreign powers and/or conceal the fact that we have and use the same technology. We know how it works (it's a directed energy weapon). It's possible that the symptoms are not even being induced as an anti-personnel attack, but rather an electromagnetic spectrum attack that targets data. President Bush and his family were plausibly affected by this at a summit in Germany (and he wrote about it in his memoir). The Russians have even been reported to have alluded to these types of weapons publicly. There are other incidents, too (such as then-Vice President Richard Nixon being bombarded by extremely high doses of radiation - probably not due to any attempt to harm him, but rather due to a wiretapping attempt) showing that certain foreign powers are willing to irradiate high-ranking US personnel in potentially dangerous ways as part of their espionage programs.
This stuff is all public knowledge and findable on a Google. That doesn't mean that every reported case of Havana syndrome is legit, but there's absolutely zero reason to believe that it's somehow impossible and very good reasons to think it is real.
And rightfully so, if your idea is true.
Yes, it forces other countries to choose China instead of the US. How does it make sense?
If you go to countries and say "we are going to slap you with a massive tariff if you choose China, or a teensy-tiny one if you choose us" it...makes total sense? The US is the largest consumer market in the world – if you are forced to choose between China and the US, all other things being equal, you pick the US every time.
Now, obviously, there's room for Trump to bungle the execution (by making all other things not be equal). But the plan is not crazy.
It doesn't.
Any tariff increase is an incentive to sell more to China and/or other countries and not to the US.
Because tariff towards said country is meant to reduce imports from said country. It is not meant to increase trade with the US.
Basically, Trump is bullying countries. He is saying, I am going to punish you for no reason, but I will punish you less if you do this another nonsensical thing for me about which I will change my mind two days later.
Now all countries need to find other export markets to replace lost exports to the US. The US role in going to diminish, China is going to become stronger which is a threat to the world stability and peace.
How can anyone find sense seeing Trump doing this?
P.S. Notice that China has increased tarifs towards the US as well. Which means that Chinese people will buy less from the US. All the other countries have a perfect opportunity to reroute lost exports to China instead. The US imports will decrease, but its exports will also decrease. The US will become isolated.
That's the thing, there are no other export markets that will replace lost exports to the US.
I have. I've also noticed that it's been reported that China is also threatening countries that are going to cut a deal with the US, and furthermore that they are obstructing Apple's attempt to relocate equipment to India. In other words, China is not only doing all the bad things you are saying Trump is doing (threatening countries with tariffs if they trade with the US instead of China) they are also disincentivizing further investment in the Chinese economy through abusive government practices.
It's possible that what you describe will happen. But it is also possible that it is China that will become isolated.
No country in the world really wants to be dependent on Chinese manufacturing. Not even Russia. Joining the US side might be a good opportunity, especially for countries like Mexico, Argentina and Vietnam, to onshore their own manufacturing as alternatives to Chinese labor for the American consumer. This would both increase their trade with the United States and decrease their own dependence on Chinese labor.
At least, that makes sense to me. I don't pretend to have a very firm grasp on the nuances of the global economy. But I don't think that means I have dementia.
We are totally dependent on global trade. That is a good thing, makes us all better off. People who worry about that don't understand this point and also don't have an alternative except start producing everything locally, which means that we become poor again.
The world is worried about China exerting its military power, therefore China needs to be restricted somehow. The good idea would be to make a block against China, remove any tariffs between countries except China and put sanctions and tariffs on China.
But punishing countries for trading with the US makes no sense. It strengthens China's position. Trump's policy was so absurd that currently many countries have already given up and believe that this will be China's century. We hope the US will change its mind but we never know.
The United States is not, no.
Not necessarily true - in this system there are losers as well as winners, at least proportionately.
There's definitely alternatives between "get critical industrial supplies from China" and "complete autarchy." The best position for any country, of course, is limited autarchy - being self sufficient on
You can offshore some of this to trusted allies, or try to compensate for it in other ways, but producing the above locally (which the United States does not do) is a desirable goal for any country.
I also think that a lot of your statements rely on a perfectly efficient and frictionless market. The market is not perfectly efficient, and it is definitely not frictionless. The United States, in particular, has a lot of what might be described as barriers to internal trade - some of them quite severe. It's quite possible (and I listened to some economic-types who are probably smarter than me suggest this, so it's not something I just made up) that even with tariffs, the US grows wealthier by cutting down these internal regulations.
Yes - this is the sort of move I have been discussing.
I work with medicines and the US despite being the most advanced in pharmaceutical industry, depend strongly on global trade for their drug supply. The industry is so global that it is not possible to be independent. I remember the situation some years ago when some European companies refused to supply thiopental used in capital punishment, the US had to rely on alternative methods to execute their death row prisoners. Even such a simple drug was not made in the US.
The trade makes everyone better off. Maybe you can find an example of some third world country that was exploited for its resources and consider it to be a loser. That is slightly different situation from a voluntary trade. Exploitation could also be caused by bullying – sell us these resources otherwise I will make things bad for you. But discounting those examples, it benefits all. The economy is not zero sum game.
In any case, the US has benefitted the most from global trade. You could consider that, for example, Vietnam leaders are exploiting their workers to produce cheap things for Americans to buy. You could make a moral case about that. But the US is clearly a winner in this situation.
Ehhhhh - in the United States, to use some examples, the value of a home relative to the value of wages has increased tremendously since the 1960s and 1970s. The price of college education has also increased (although that came later).
Now, I don't know that it is fair to pin that on trade, or entirely on trade, but my perception - as an American - is that free trade has inadvertently created a trap, by offshoring traditional industrial manufacturing, which as I understand it often granted people long-term stable employment with the prospect for real growth in wages. Now most people looking to earn good money in America go to college, often by taking out loans, which then traps them in long-term debt. On paper plenty of wealth is being created, but often at the expense of actual prosperity and fiscal stability of ordinary Americans. I'm not much of a liberal but it is true that wealth in the United States has become more unevenly distributed over time, which I think is probably partially attributable to free trade, and at a certain point that's (practically speaking) a potential societal hazard. And, more darkly, free trade has helped enable the American opioid epidemic, which is more dangerous and destructive to Americans than terrorism or crime.
I am not sure it was reasonable to expect the 1960s to last forever (we had just bombed the rest of the civilized world to ash, so they had to buy our stuff) and I am not necessarily arguing that free trade is bad for the United States on paper.
But it is true that offshoring hollowed out a lot of traditionally prosperous parts of the United States. And now you're complaining that Donald Trump, whose election was in part a response to...offshoring, which was due to free trade, is going to make us all poorer.
Perhaps free trade is necessarily in tension with democratic government, or perhaps it is possible to arrange free trade in such a way as to prevent the evils of offshoring and atrophying domestic industrial might, or perhaps any number of things. Certainly what I've said here is necessarily an oversimplification. But if I had to guess free trade, like immigration, follows a natural cycle and if it is not properly moderated and balanced against the concerns of its citizens, it will be subject to backlash.
Just to clarify - I'm not really against "free trade." It's more that I think as implemented the United States has made some major mistakes in the last 50 years and needs to stop making them. I don't really consider "lower tariffs" as one of those mistakes so much as "offshoring" but sadly one begets the other. I also think, unfortunately, that it's impossible to admire your cake and eat it too. Perhaps, for all the ill it did, we really did pursue the best course, more or less. But if that's true maybe it's also possible, for all the ill it does, that we are pursuing the ~best course now. Different times call for different measures.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link