Biden's Crusade Against Solar Panels and Electric Vehicles

[Lumpenproletariat]

So then, all trading is bad for the world, if there are any supply chains?

It's not that there's never any decoupling, or that it's absolutely never necessary. Let's assume that in some rare cases maybe some trade gets interrupted, out of necessity, because of a war or something. This hypothetical possibility is no argument against doing trade as much as it's possible, to each country's benefit, while conditions permit -- which is 99% of the time. Just because something might go wrong next year or in 10 or 20 years from now is no reason to cut off trade now and have a trade war with a country someone thinks might be a future "enemy" or threat to us.

In the above Ukraine-Russia case, maybe some products got disrupted. But that only means this trade will be replaced by a new system, so there's adjustments to the new system as the old system is decreased. But still that previous trade was good for everyone, and the change now does not negate the good which went on for such a long time earlier.

Likewise there's no reason to think Chinese EVs and solar panels are a threat to the U.S. only because something might change later, like China becoming a future threat we have to adjust to. . . . No one is explaining Biden's perception that these products pose a threat now (except that crybaby U.S. producers cannot compete with them)..

Two fallacies with the "global supply chain" hysteria are that 1) usually the trade that's been happening need not really be disrupted (or not very much), regardless of the war or other crisis which might disrupt it; and 2) even if the trade has to be stopped, that doesn't change the benefit of trade which had happened for so long leading up to the change which now causes the end to it. It was still good to do that trading all those years prior to this change which now puts an end to it. You can't name a case where the trade really did damage to either economy, regardless of possible disruption later which might cause the trade to be ended. Just because something good comes to an end does not negate the benefit of it from earlier, i.e., does not turn something good into something evil. That earlier good thing was still good, even if now it comes to an end. Sometimes a good thing might come to an end as a new arrangement replaces the old. But that doesn't mean the previous good thing was not really good.

"Maybe some, maybe some". Like the upheaval of the entire energy sector? Is that "maybe some"?
And when you might consider a country becoming a "future threat" and when others do must be vastly different. When is a country a threat? When the missiles start to fly? Is this when we should start considering changes to our supply chain?

So all the trade with China and Russia/USSR over the past 60-70 years has made us worse off? How are we worse off? And likewise all our Asian trade, with Japan and S. Korea etc., because this requires "supply chains" near China -- all this trade has made us worse off? So basically we should have ended all trade with Asia and Australia and most of the Pacific Islands -- all this trade has made the U.S. poorer? How is the U.S. worse off, poorer now, as a result of our Asian trade over the past 60-70 years?

This is essentially a xenophobic argument against virtually all foreign trade.

It's an endorsement of the Cuban embargo, claiming this has made everyone better off. Also a call for additional embargoes against dozens of African and Latin American and Asian countries which have allied with Russia/USSR and China. So embargoes against a third or half of all other countries would make the U.S. better off. So we've been made worse off by all this trade, because there was a possibility of war?

Well it's neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is companies are doing this on their own in many cases, not being forced by the government. They see what you will not and they are spending the resources to make changes now.

That proves the point I'm making, that there's no practical need for sanctions and trade embargoes, because for real risks or danger, companies individually will choose to disengage from the trade, as they assess those risks voluntarily.

We know who our friends are, who has dealt with us honestly over the years and who has not.

That varies from one company to another, from one buyer/seller to another. Letting each buyer/seller be free to decide works best for the whole economy. No need for the ruling elite demagogues like Biden/Trump and Bernie Sanders etc. to impose their xenophobia and China-bashing onto us all. Individuals can choose whether to trade with foreigners.

Who has cheated, lied, and stolen from us at every turn and who has not.

It is not scientifically possible to identify each foreign country into the "good guys" and "bad guys" categories. Not everyone agrees on this, plus it is still in the interest of buyers/sellers to trade with the "bad guys" in many cases. Countries change too much for us to put them into these dubious categories for all time. Politically S. Korea, e.g., was a bad country for a long time.

And it's not just EVs and solar panels.

"not just"? It's not those at all. No one yet has answered why these products pose a threat. Is China planting body-snatcher seed pods into these products which will duplicate and replace the unsuspecting consumers? What is the threat they pose?

Why do you trust Trump/Biden speech-maker demagogues to decide what's good for us rather than leaving it up to the free choice of individual buyers/sellers to each do what is in their self interest?

 

[barbos]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

Sure, I believe you believe that, sure.

 

[ZiprHead]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

Sure, I believe you believe that, sure.

Yah. And you thought Russia would take Ukraine in two weeks.

 

[barbos]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

Sure, I believe you believe that, sure.

Yah. And you thought Russia would take Ukraine in two weeks.

Without criminal regime in Washington help. That's what I believed. And Washington scam believed the same.
So when Trump says he can stop that war immediately he is not lying.
He can take US out of this war and regime in Kiev will collapse within one day.
This is not a war between Ukraine and Russia. This is the war between US and Russia.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How is China a worse threat than the U.S?

No one is explaining the damage China is doing by producing EVs and solar panels. The only fault of China that anyone is mentioning is the military threat, plus also domestic human rights violation, such as its "slave labor." But the danger from its EVs and solar panels is not being explained.

How great is the damage or crime against the world as a result of China's militarism/imperialism and its human rights abuses? Let's assume it's a significant quantity of damage, if we could measure it scientifically. Even if it cannot be measured with precision, there is some such actual volume of harm done, in terms of lives lost and costs which reduce the standard of living.

And so it's because of this damage that we must punish China? That's all anyone is saying here (if they're not trying to change the subject altogether). And the punishment is to penalize their sale of EVs and solar panels.

But what about damage done by the United States? What punishment should be imposed onto the United States for its crimes against the world?

What crimes?


U.S. crimes against the world:

The United States is the world's foremost leader of the world in carbon emissions per capita, at the very top of the list.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

followed by Canada and Russia. China is significantly farther down the list, but above average.



The proper correction for this is a carbon tax, which at least forces the ones doing the harm to pay for it, which is like reparations, which can serve as a deterrent. Most other high-emission countries are paying a high carbon or fuel tax to compensate for the damage. But not the U.S.

It's not easy to get a clear comprehensive schedule of the carbon tax paid by countries individually. But it's clear that the U.S. is the worst offender, paying the lowest, or virtually lowest of any country.

Global carbon taxes by country 2023 | Statista

The country with the highest carbon tax in the world in 2023 was Uruguay, with rates of more than 150 U.S. dollars per metric ton of CO2.

www.statista.com

Maybe the following is a more complete listing:

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - Fuel Taxes by Country

China's tax on gasoline or carbon is much higher than the U.S.


How do we know that China's crime or damage inflicted onto the world is any worse than that of the U.S., considering the far greater damage done by the U.S. in causing climate change and refusing to put any penalty on those responsible for the damage?

The number of lives lost due to climate change is estimated at 315,000 per year, at present -- https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/global-climate-change-causing-315000-deaths-every-year#:~:text=Climate change is currently causing,Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) -- and will increase. So over time this means there are millions of lives lost due to climate change, maybe 3 million per decade, with the U.S. by far the greatest offender. Does this crime against the world matter? Why shouldn't it matter as much as China's crime?

And even though the GDP of China is about equal to the U.S., its guilt is much less because its high GDP is due mainly to its much larger population. It's the per capita figure that is relevant, so that China's responsibility for the climate change damage is more like that of the developed European countries, while the U.S. stands way apart, far above all other countries for its guilt in causing climate change damage.

How many millions of deaths are caused by China's bad behavior, with its militarism and human rights abuses? Will we deter China's bad behavior by penalizing their sale of EVs and solar panels? Will these costs imposed onto U.S. consumers curtail China's militarism and improve human rights there?

Why isn't there any punishment imposed onto the United States, for the disproportionate damage it's doing, in causing climate change? Why isn't this kind of damage just as bad as China producing EVs and solar panels?

(Why is it that no one here is giving any answer to this? but is going off the topic? Is this an admission that Biden has his head up his butt? by imagining that EVs and solar panels pose a threat to us which has to be deterred?)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The obvious truth or economic reality of this is that most manufacturing jobs are better done -- more efficiently to the benefit of consumers -- in those poor countries where there is a greater labor supply and there are cost efficiencies which the developed countries could benefit from if they would stop incessantly pandering to the crybabies and let the competitive market do its job of serving the consumers.

A short sighted policy at best.

Hey, anyone remember Mao's "Four Pests" thing during the "Great Leap Forward?" Mao be like "we gotta get rid of these goddamned sparrows!"

Good times...

Yup. Mao is frequently called a mass murderer but his ills were far more epic mismanagement than intentional evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

I very much doubt China's would fare anywhere near as badly as Russia's. Big problems would be found but not on the scale we saw with Russia.

 

[Toni]

U.S. lead in manufacturing
lead in worker productivity

I want to mention a book promoted frequently by Thom Hartmann, who is probably the foremost "Progressive" radio talk show host and also foremost Left Populist pundit promoter of Protectionist trade policy.

Entrepreneurial Nation: Why Manufacturing is Still Key to America's Future​

by Ro Khanna

There are two points to note about this. The book makes the case for the U.S. as the global leader in manufacturing, despite some loss of manufacturing to other countries, showing that this trend will continue, with the U.S. staying ahead of all other nations.

There is nothing to show that any protectionist measures are to be credited for this advancement of U.S. dominance in manufacturing. U.S. leadership in manufacturing will continue, without any need for protection against foreign competition, including from China or other nations who "cheat" by using cheap labor. Trump and other demagogues who give this crybaby complaint against poor countries (like China, which really is poor by most standards), never point out that the manufacturing jobs in those countries are usually among the highest-paying jobs in those countries, even though they would be "cheap labor" by the standards of the U.S. and other developed nations.

The obvious truth or economic reality of this is that most manufacturing jobs are better done -- more efficiently to the benefit of consumers -- in those poor countries where there is a greater labor supply and there are cost efficiencies which the developed countries could benefit from if they would stop incessantly pandering to the crybabies and let the competitive market do its job of serving the consumers.

The main argument of the book is that the U.S. does lead and will continue to lead, and there is no argument saying why any protectionist measures need play any role in this future progress of U.S. manufacturing. The only reduction is in the number of workers needed in manufacturing, which is interpreted by the bone-headed "Progressives" (Left) and Trumpists (Right) as representing some supposed DECLINE in manufacturing, which it is not. It's just fine for the manufacturing sector to forge ahead with less and less need for the lower-level workers and more reliance on scientists and high-level engineers designing the computers and other technology to do the small work which the laborers are no longer needed for. This is progress, not decline.

The second point to note is that U.S. worker productivity is the highest in the world, which is just fine, and will probably continue, without the need to artificially prop up their wages still higher or the need for any federal protection of the low-level workers in the form of trade barriers against foreign competition. All the facts are that more competition makes the economy stronger, not weaker, because it forces companies to improve their performance.

And the higher U.S. worker productivity is not a result of those low-level workers being tougher and stronger and smarter and more patriotic or virtuous than those of the other competing nations, but rather a result of the better science and technology provided to them by the decision-makers of the companies, from those more highly educated and knowledgeable of the business and science and management of the resources. So our fantasies about the lower-level workers needing to be paid higher than their market value because the "U.S. worker" is some kind of special breed who outperforms their counterparts in Asia etc. is pure myth and delusion.

China is assuming its role of supplying the labor for the lower-level jobs, and will keep improving at the higher level also, like Japan has done. China is doing the smart thing by investing so much in the clean energy technology like solar panels and EVs., for which they should be praised instead of condemned by American demagogues Biden and Trump.

Rather than this demagoguery and pandering to the uncompetitive, the U.S. needs to assume its role of leadership at the higher levels of production, promoting more competition and more education of future scientists (many of whom come from Asia to the U.S.). But instead we're pandering to the lower-level labor union crybabies, as if their whining is the key to America's lead in world manufacturing production.

Certainly one can make a good case for good paying manufacturing jobs in China ( and other places, including the US) as a stabilizing factor within such countries and also between countries. It’s very anti-war if done well.

My arguments against China as a source of ‘cheap’ consumer goods and computer parts, circuit boards, etc. stands: China is well known to be predatory with regards to intellectual property, and their environmental record and human rights record is absolutely abysmal, including specifically the workers who work in near slave conditions for low pay. This also does apply to varying degrees to some other nations. And of course there is the huge environmental cost of shipping goods and parts overseas.

I have nothing against the Chinese people and want to see everyone, whichever nation they reside in, to have access to decent jobs with good working conditions, and a clean environment, among other things such as a free society, excellent education and health care and good opportunities for a good standard of living.

That China and some other countries are able to make goods at such low prices is actually a lie: they do it by stealing intellectual property, by enslaving workers and by trashing the environment. I don’t give a shit if they make cheap phones air circuitry.

 

[Emily Lake]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

I very much doubt China's would fare anywhere near as badly as Russia's. Big problems would be found but not on the scale we saw with Russia.

I think they'd be about the same level of bad. Russia at least had competitive arms at one point in time, they just didn't keep up with advancements, and their quality is abhorrent. China has never had competitive arms and the majority of what they say they have is just plain fake. They've got some missiles, and they have a lot of people to throw at stuff... but their air, naval, and ground power is not nearly what they claim it is.

That said, China is a bigger threat to the US than Russia is. They've infiltrated our economy to a shocking degree, and they've got a whole lot more invested in social media and cyber than Russia. The risks from China are very different than the risks from Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

I very much doubt China's would fare anywhere near as badly as Russia's. Big problems would be found but not on the scale we saw with Russia.

I think they'd be about the same level of bad. Russia at least had competitive arms at one point in time, they just didn't keep up with advancements, and their quality is abhorrent. China has never had competitive arms and the majority of what they say they have is just plain fake. They've got some missiles, and they have a lot of people to throw at stuff... but their air, naval, and ground power is not nearly what they claim it is.

That said, China is a bigger threat to the US than Russia is. They've infiltrated our economy to a shocking degree, and they've got a whole lot more invested in social media and cyber than Russia. The risks from China are very different than the risks from Russia.

I'm sure it's not as good as they think it is, but the corruption is more pervasive in Russia than in China.

 

[barbos]

Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.

Not really. We'd feel pretty bad about showing the entire world how completely fake China's claimed military prowess is.

I very much doubt China's would fare anywhere near as badly as Russia's. Big problems would be found but not on the scale we saw with Russia.

You do realize that Russia was not as bad as you was led to believe?
Propaganda was lying to you in order to make you support this illegal war. Arestovich admitted that.

 

[ZiprHead]

You do realize that Russia was not as bad as you was led to believe?

I agree. it's far worse.

 

[barbos]

You do realize that Russia was not as bad as you was led to believe?

I agree. it's far worse.

So bad, that NATO assholes have to constantly escalate.\
You remember your original plan? The one where sanctions alone destroy Russia?
That was your fucking plan!