The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
China Slides
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Four weeks ago, we looked at the change in American sentiment towards China from the beginning of March, before the coronavirus shutdown, and again at the end of March, once shelter-in-place had been instituted nearly nationwide. Of mild surprise was the discovery that Americans expressed less hostility towards China after corona came to the US in a big way than before the virus turned society upside down.

The store of goodwill Americans carried a couple of weeks into the lock down looks to have been exhausted. By the end of April, six weeks into economic catastrophe and official indications–seriously challenged by UR’s eponym–that the virus originated in a Chinese virology lab rather than in a wet market, sentiments have headed south:

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats now regard China as either “unfriendly” or an “enemy”, up from half of Democrats a month ago. China is now, for the first time since YouGov began this module of questions three years ago, on par with Russia in terms of American resentment.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Coronavirus, Polling 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m with David Cole on this whole bioweapon thesis:

    A 2017 study by scientists from the University of New South Wales and the University of Texas, Austin, specifically identified Wuhan as a “high risk area” for zoonotic pandemics because of its wet markets. The study recommended the closure of Wuhan’s live-animal markets, but the authors admitted that such actions would meet “public disapproval” (a reference to the Chinese public’s revolt against government attempts to shutter the markets after SARS).

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous. China = BAD so it’s their bioweapon. US = BAD so it’s their bioweapon. Premesis for these bioweapon takes have consistantly being wrong (It’s a US weapon look it’s destabilising China and Iran/Oh yes that was the point but it’s gotten away from the US this is definitive proof it’s a bioweapon!) so it’s just looking ridiculous now.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @eah
    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous.

    The "thesis" (more of a speculation really) is, per se, not really "ridiculous", as research on pathogens that could potentially be used as bioweapons is no doubt ongoing -- the thesis is unproven (and perhaps unprove-able) -- however many of the articles written about this are indeed ridiculous, since they offer no real evidence, just a lot of speculation, yet by tone or rhetorical content put forth the thesis as certain -- some are absolutely scurrilous (and anti-intellectual) in this regard.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous.
     
    That's true.

    But the issue is whether the virus was accidentally released from the Wuhan Biolab. The MSM won't touch the story and has been actively deplatforming it. But the circumstantial evidence is that:

    (a) According to its own published research, the Wuhan Biolab (Dr. Shi Zhengli), was experimenting with splicing elements of SARS ("S-proteins") with collected samples of natural bat coronavirus to allow the virus to cross species (Per her 2015 Paper in Nature);

    (b) The Wujan coronavirus gene sequence which was published by a Chinese lab on January 11, 2020, demonstrated it had sequences identical to the documented samples collected by the Chinese for research;

    (c) The bats that host the virus do not exist in Wujan; the "wet market" in Wujan did not sell bats; and contact tracing shows that "patient zero" could not have come from the wet market;

    (d) As soon as these facts came out, the Chinese ordered the samples destroyed and put a gag order on all discussion of the virus or its origin;

    (e) Before the gag order, a high-level Chinese administrator (Xu Bo) and a researcher at the biolab (Chen Qanjiao), revealed that the Chinese themselves suspected the virus had leaked from the biolab.

    (f) A female graduate student who worked at the biolab, Huang Yanling, is suspected of being "patient zero" and having died of the virus. The Chinese deny this and scrubbed her info. But she's missing and there's no proof of life.

    This documentary is by the anti-China Epoch Times and has some over-dramatic bits, but it's still a good summary of the known facts.

    https://youtu.be/Gdd7dtDaYmM?t=107

    , @Kratoklastes
    The only valid reason for believing it's a US bioweapon is that it's unfit for purpose and has resulted in massive blowback.

    In mitigation: if it was a US bioweapon it wouldn't be finished yet, because politicians would still be insisting that some part of the development program was housed in their state.

    Cole is being gulled into asking the wrong question: he is failing Pynchon's "Proverbs for Paranoids #3"...

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't' need to worry about answers.
     
    The most useful question is not 'Bioweapon or no?', or even 'US Bioweapon, or Chinaman?'

    The most useful question is 'When and where did it start?'.

    We now know to a very high degree of certainty that
     • the Wuhan and Italian strains are siblings (rather than the Italian strain being a descendant); and
     • the parent of both dates to September 2019 in Yunnan province and the Wuhan strain probably existed within a month of that timeframe.

    This is actually a very good fit with the failed epidemiological models: they assumed that the novel pathogen emerged with the first symptomatic cases in Wuhan, which is what gave them such a high estimate of R[0] as symptomatic cases emerged. It seemed to emerge out of nowhere and ramp up rapidly - but that was entirely an artifact of how the numbers were obtained.

    We now know that the vast majority of covid19 infections have few or no symptoms and resolve quickly in healthy adults. We also know that when the infection is low- or no-symptom, there is a very high probability that the infection is undetectable after the fact (e.g., serological tests don't find evidence of antibodies).

    So it's very consistent with a pathogen that began life in October, then had two months of unconstrained growth; it produced few symptoms in the vast bulk of people (who went undetected or were considered to have a cold or seasonal flu). Occasionally it produced lethal pneumonia in sick elderly people, which was easy to write off as standard end-of-life opportunistic pneumonia.

    Then there was a 'cluster' of cases centred on a place that was being actively monitored (Wuhan) and it was off to the races - with a very large reservoir of already-infected to subsequently furnish 'new cases'.

    And here we are: nobody dares admit that this timeline makes much more sense; that the high detection of antibodies in otherwise-asymp cases is evidence that a very large proportion of the population has already had it - as I pointed out (on March 24th) would be the case for a fast-spreading infection that rarely killed anyone, that was spreading unconstrained since early December at the earliest.
    , @obwandiyag
    Notice how you defend the things that your owners, the very rich, the powers that be, want you to defend.

    They want you to say:
    1. It's not a US bioweapon.
    2. It's just the flu.
    3. China did it.

    What they don't want you saying is that it is a US bioweapon. So congratulations on doing your master's bidding.
  2. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:

    A plurality of blacks thinking of China as an enemy is quite something. As we saw with polling on an immigration moratorium (during the pandemic and its aftermath) blacks basically view any enemy of white-majority America as their ally (they were the least likely group, by far, including Hispanics, to support such a ban.)

  3. Of course, the same Neocons who have been trying to keep Russia the bogeyman for years now want to do the same with China, a very stupid thing if it came to real war. OTOH, for the common people, the wet-market/escape-from-the-lab cause of the virus has got to be a factor, but I think the economic problems caused by the hysterical response are a bigger factor in this hate on China.

    See, the resentment in Americans has been building for years, regarding the outsourcing of work, the stealing of trade secrets, and, of course, the continual annoyances from the Cheap China-made Crap. I think it’s coming to a head now, with people wondering where the jobs will be once things come out of LOCKDOWN. Americans have been pretty tolerant of a lot of crap over the last 20 years, during the major Globalization. We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.
     
    Until they figure out that ending globalisation will lead to higher prices and a fall in living standards.
    , @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    I think the economic problems caused by the hysterical response are a bigger factor in this hate on China.
     
    I agree, but this also shows how irrational people are. It really annoys me that most of the advocates for limiting trade with China have to justify it as a Holy Anti-Communist Crusade or want it in "retaliation" for some kind of garbage going on in Hong Kong or stuff to that effect. It especially puzzles me becuase these are often "America-First" types. If you really wanted to put America First, trade restrictions would not be a penal action leveled against China's horrible wicked evilness, but a purely domestic calculation: if it is good for America do it, if it isn't, don't.

    I rather like China. I think their government has done a far better job than America's at improving its resident's lives. I support autarkic policies purely becuase I think they would be good for the American people--and in the long run, for China's people as well.
    , @MBlanc46
    We can hope, AE. But even if the common people finally start speaking out against globalization, what will it matter if the corporate and financial elites, and their politician and media water carriers, decide that globalization is still where the power and riches are for them?
  4. Gee, they keep telling me common people are smarter than they’re given credit for.

    Their feelings about China certainly constitutes good evidence in favor of this proposition.

  5. Seriously, if these figures actually represent the mindset of the general American population, then I would have to conclude that the average American is not very bright.

    Just sayin’.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    You're just sayin' shit.

    It proves the exact opposite. The wisdom of the common everyday American.
  6. @Achmed E. Newman
    Of course, the same Neocons who have been trying to keep Russia the bogeyman for years now want to do the same with China, a very stupid thing if it came to real war. OTOH, for the common people, the wet-market/escape-from-the-lab cause of the virus has got to be a factor, but I think the economic problems caused by the hysterical response are a bigger factor in this hate on China.

    See, the resentment in Americans has been building for years, regarding the outsourcing of work, the stealing of trade secrets, and, of course, the continual annoyances from the Cheap China-made Crap. I think it's coming to a head now, with people wondering where the jobs will be once things come out of LOCKDOWN. Americans have been pretty tolerant of a lot of crap over the last 20 years, during the major Globalization. We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.

    We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.

    Until they figure out that ending globalisation will lead to higher prices and a fall in living standards.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Higher prices are coming anyway. The drastic lowering of labor costs via outsourcing has already happened a while back. Big-Biz crony-capitalist profits must steadily be increased to keep the US Dollar Ponzi scheme going. For 10 years, now it's been the lowering (yes it can get even lower) of quality to save costs, yet prices have still been rising at a greater rate than the BS BLS numbers.

    With the printing of another few Trillions out of thin air, consumer price increases will be on a higher slope.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
    , @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    You know, I've thought about this. What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.

    If you're really that concerned about "higher prices," the income made off the tax in the short term could be easily be returned to consumers for a net zero effect. You could even offer it as a rebate to states in order to offset a certain chunk of their sales taxes. The short term net cost to consumers would literally be zero, and even domestic companies with no foreign competition would see a net benefit.

    In the long term, once companies start moving back to the US, overall prices would eventually start to rise. But that would be more than offset by higher wages due to increased labor scarcity. (This is not speculative, but by definition: GDP = C + I + G + (Ex - Im), and you've just eliminated Im; maybe Ex as well but we have a negative trade balance so...). And the short "period of dislocation" where tariffs can have a real negative impact would already be over.
  7. @Tusk
    I'm with David Cole on this whole bioweapon thesis:

    A 2017 study by scientists from the University of New South Wales and the University of Texas, Austin, specifically identified Wuhan as a “high risk area” for zoonotic pandemics because of its wet markets. The study recommended the closure of Wuhan’s live-animal markets, but the authors admitted that such actions would meet “public disapproval” (a reference to the Chinese public’s revolt against government attempts to shutter the markets after SARS).

     

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous. China = BAD so it's their bioweapon. US = BAD so it's their bioweapon. Premesis for these bioweapon takes have consistantly being wrong (It's a US weapon look it's destabilising China and Iran/Oh yes that was the point but it's gotten away from the US this is definitive proof it's a bioweapon!) so it's just looking ridiculous now.

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous.

    The “thesis” (more of a speculation really) is, per se, not really “ridiculous”, as research on pathogens that could potentially be used as bioweapons is no doubt ongoing — the thesis is unproven (and perhaps unprove-able) — however many of the articles written about this are indeed ridiculous, since they offer no real evidence, just a lot of speculation, yet by tone or rhetorical content put forth the thesis as certain — some are absolutely scurrilous (and anti-intellectual) in this regard.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The “thesis” (more of a speculation really) is, per se, not really “ridiculous”, as research on pathogens that could potentially be used as bioweapons is no doubt ongoing — the thesis is unproven (and perhaps unprove-able) — however many of the articles written about this are indeed ridiculous, since they offer no real evidence, just a lot of speculation, yet by tone or rhetorical content put forth the thesis as certain — some are absolutely scurrilous (and anti-intellectual) in this regard.
     
    This is Unz Review. Whatever the subject you'll find members of the tin-foil hat brigade here with a conspiracy theory. In some cases several competing conspiracy theories. The more paltry or non-existent the evidence the more convinced they are that it must be true.
  8. A nation becomes an enemy of another nation because it threatens the latter’s interests (or is perceived to). History shows it is power not ideals that drives countries to war. Conflict between the US and China will a nuclear war.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  9. @dfordoom

    We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.
     
    Until they figure out that ending globalisation will lead to higher prices and a fall in living standards.

    Higher prices are coming anyway. The drastic lowering of labor costs via outsourcing has already happened a while back. Big-Biz crony-capitalist profits must steadily be increased to keep the US Dollar Ponzi scheme going. For 10 years, now it’s been the lowering (yes it can get even lower) of quality to save costs, yet prices have still been rising at a greater rate than the BS BLS numbers.

    With the printing of another few Trillions out of thin air, consumer price increases will be on a higher slope.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    I'm not convinced. There are plenty of arguments against globalisation but the economic arguments are rather weak. It's horrible to admit this but I think that overall, in material terms, we may well be better off with globalisation.

    Economic self-sufficiency may just mean a manufacturing sector that will need bailouts on a regular basis. It will be a manufacturing sector with the taxpayer footing the bill (not very libertarian). Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic). The consumer and the taxpayer will get screwed while a few billionaires will be making out like bandits. Basically a way of siphoning taxpayers' money into corporate pockets.

    Australia used to be surprisingly self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing. What that meant in practice is that we had a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from. Now Australians have been effectively banned from the global marketplace (thanks to government interference in free trade and free consumer choice) so we're back to having a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you're intending to fight a war. Otherwise it's likely to be costly and futile. Plus, it's socialism.
    , @A123

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    You are correct.

    Manufacturing jobs pay more than the other blue/pink collar options for HS graduates. Plus, the deregulation needed to revive manufacturing will produce gains across the board.

    Given how badly the Elitist CCP abuses the workers of China, it is only a matter of time until a USSR-like collapse or even a civil war. The U.S. needs to make sure that it is not dependent on China. The WUHAN-19 virus was a warning, and for once it looks like people are listening.

    PEACE 😷
    , @nokangaroos
    Erm, no.

    In the long run Triffin´s Paradox is no more forgiving than the rocket equation or the First Law. The reserve currency (moreso a weaponized one) penalizes domestic production. By forcing everybody and his mama to work for you, you reduce your own workers to rest-, shift-, clue- and useless panem eaters ... the plebs of the States formerly known as United are what Marx (whom I do not usually quote) called "luxury workers" and "counterrevolutionary to the bone".

    - The Great Depression (and a few other things) was the direct result of the Verailles Treaty (and only WWII ended it) - and the current situation is much worse. (Kozlick held the US addiction to war stems from "overproduction of capital" but it goes back to long before saturation so the classic neoMarxist take can´t be it (it has to do with credit going back to at least Cromwell) - Hudson might be onto something but is a bit above my head; though I see only another World War will get them out of this.)

    - A mercenary army is a necessary corollary. (Geez. Whoda thunk the Founders weren´t stupid?)
    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: "Pay the soldiers first - the rest don´t matter. " :P

    "Becoming self-sufficient again" will in the short run mean austerity to make a pig barf - but it´s worth it ;)

  10. @eah
    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous.

    The "thesis" (more of a speculation really) is, per se, not really "ridiculous", as research on pathogens that could potentially be used as bioweapons is no doubt ongoing -- the thesis is unproven (and perhaps unprove-able) -- however many of the articles written about this are indeed ridiculous, since they offer no real evidence, just a lot of speculation, yet by tone or rhetorical content put forth the thesis as certain -- some are absolutely scurrilous (and anti-intellectual) in this regard.

    The “thesis” (more of a speculation really) is, per se, not really “ridiculous”, as research on pathogens that could potentially be used as bioweapons is no doubt ongoing — the thesis is unproven (and perhaps unprove-able) — however many of the articles written about this are indeed ridiculous, since they offer no real evidence, just a lot of speculation, yet by tone or rhetorical content put forth the thesis as certain — some are absolutely scurrilous (and anti-intellectual) in this regard.

    This is Unz Review. Whatever the subject you’ll find members of the tin-foil hat brigade here with a conspiracy theory. In some cases several competing conspiracy theories. The more paltry or non-existent the evidence the more convinced they are that it must be true.

  11. Whether the virus was engineered or not, China made a deliberate choice to spread SARS-2 to the rest of the world. Not up for debate. Basic chess move.

    This was an extremely predictable move and it’s exactly in line with what all competent governments should do. You don’t allow your country to become uniquely disadvantaged vs the rest of the world.

    China is an opponent, a competitor. Always has been always will be.

    It’s concerning that the “natsec” “foreign policy” military industrial etc and whatever, all of that is actually totally incompetent at its explicit goal of projecting American power around the world. It’s all just a scam to maintain the domestic status of those guys.

    Which is a very bad thing. The online right who want “us hegemony”/zog empire/whatever to end are retarded. Being a superpower is great. Our domestic enemies don’t get any less powerful just because US isn’t #1 anymore

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Whether the virus was engineered or not, China made a deliberate choice to spread SARS-2 to the rest of the world.
     
    You need to check your tin-foil hat. It may be malfunctioning.
  12. @Achmed E. Newman
    Higher prices are coming anyway. The drastic lowering of labor costs via outsourcing has already happened a while back. Big-Biz crony-capitalist profits must steadily be increased to keep the US Dollar Ponzi scheme going. For 10 years, now it's been the lowering (yes it can get even lower) of quality to save costs, yet prices have still been rising at a greater rate than the BS BLS numbers.

    With the printing of another few Trillions out of thin air, consumer price increases will be on a higher slope.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.

    I’m not convinced. There are plenty of arguments against globalisation but the economic arguments are rather weak. It’s horrible to admit this but I think that overall, in material terms, we may well be better off with globalisation.

    Economic self-sufficiency may just mean a manufacturing sector that will need bailouts on a regular basis. It will be a manufacturing sector with the taxpayer footing the bill (not very libertarian). Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic). The consumer and the taxpayer will get screwed while a few billionaires will be making out like bandits. Basically a way of siphoning taxpayers’ money into corporate pockets.

    Australia used to be surprisingly self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing. What that meant in practice is that we had a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from. Now Australians have been effectively banned from the global marketplace (thanks to government interference in free trade and free consumer choice) so we’re back to having a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war. Otherwise it’s likely to be costly and futile. Plus, it’s socialism.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war.
     
    If a nation is not ready to fight a war, then that nation will be at the mercy of other nations. This is a very dangerous place to be for the deposed top dog.
    , @MarkinLA
    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    That is not entirely true. A lot of automotive firsts came out of America long before there was any significant auto imports especially pre-WWII. The problem was that the companies were no longer run by car guys but by finance guys who think cost cutting and "economies of scale" were the most important issue. The lack of competition just made it easier to continue with those policies.
    , @anon
    >Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic).

    Couldn't, say, a 10 yr plan of incremental step-ups in tariffs accomplish this? Can do minor tweaks on industry by industry basis as needed. Gives enough time to transition and minimize supply disruptions.

    And goal wouldn't be total economic isolation (i.e. zero trade), just a very significant re-balancing.

    , @Not my economy

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war. Otherwise it’s likely to be costly and futile.

     

    You may not be intending to fight a war but war is intending to fight you.

    Self sufficiency is costly right up until you need it, at which point it becomes priceless.
  13. @Not my economy
    Whether the virus was engineered or not, China made a deliberate choice to spread SARS-2 to the rest of the world. Not up for debate. Basic chess move.

    This was an extremely predictable move and it’s exactly in line with what all competent governments should do. You don’t allow your country to become uniquely disadvantaged vs the rest of the world.

    China is an opponent, a competitor. Always has been always will be.

    It’s concerning that the “natsec” “foreign policy” military industrial etc and whatever, all of that is actually totally incompetent at its explicit goal of projecting American power around the world. It’s all just a scam to maintain the domestic status of those guys.

    Which is a very bad thing. The online right who want “us hegemony”/zog empire/whatever to end are retarded. Being a superpower is great. Our domestic enemies don’t get any less powerful just because US isn’t #1 anymore

    Whether the virus was engineered or not, China made a deliberate choice to spread SARS-2 to the rest of the world.

    You need to check your tin-foil hat. It may be malfunctioning.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    So....

    It is impossible to bring manufacturing back and we shouldn't try...

    China has no aggressive strategies towards the West (as you told A123)...

    And in the past, I heard you say our only hope is to be controlled/ dominated by China...

    If I was as conspiratorial minded as the average Unz commenters, I'd be quite cynical about you by now lol...

    :)

    I believe AE has expressed a similar desire to be dominated by Islam....what is it with you alt righters :)
  14. @Achmed E. Newman
    Higher prices are coming anyway. The drastic lowering of labor costs via outsourcing has already happened a while back. Big-Biz crony-capitalist profits must steadily be increased to keep the US Dollar Ponzi scheme going. For 10 years, now it's been the lowering (yes it can get even lower) of quality to save costs, yet prices have still been rising at a greater rate than the BS BLS numbers.

    With the printing of another few Trillions out of thin air, consumer price increases will be on a higher slope.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.

    You are correct.

    Manufacturing jobs pay more than the other blue/pink collar options for HS graduates. Plus, the deregulation needed to revive manufacturing will produce gains across the board.

    Given how badly the Elitist CCP abuses the workers of China, it is only a matter of time until a USSR-like collapse or even a civil war. The U.S. needs to make sure that it is not dependent on China. The WUHAN-19 virus was a warning, and for once it looks like people are listening.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    You seem to have swallowed too much propaganda about conditions in Chinese factories.
    , @songbird
    The USSR collapsed because of ethnic fissures and elite defection. The USSR was only 50.78% Russian. China is 92% Han. In China, economic reforms have created great wealth which is used to retain the loyalty of military cadres, as the military have a controlling interest in many companies.

    As to civil war, Chinese TFR is too low for civil war. The general mood in China is noticeably more optimistic than the general mood in the West - and quite understandably so, as the Chinese have so far not pursued replacement migration. Plus, the Chinese have a lot of technological tools to prevent civil war, such as the social credit system. The historical cycle of instability in China is likely something of an anachronism now.
  15. Well, it’s a huge relief to have my faith in the ignorance and stupidity of the American public now restored.

    People are so gullible that they’ll believe any nonsense they get from TV, radio, or its current Social Media equivalents.

    America’s ruling elites are shrewd enough to work hard to cover all the different ideological venues. For example, I was just talking a few days ago with an elderly relative who’s been a committed left-liberal her entire life and had regarded Donald Trump as the greatest calamity to befall our country.

    Naturally, she gets her knowledge of the world from NPR, and apparently they’ve been playing up the “China Bad” theme pretty heavily lately, and she’s therefore completely swung around. For the last few years, she’d regarded Russia and Putin as the centers of world evil, but now China is starting to join them.

    But the major problem with propaganda is that it doesn’t necessarily impact reality, and the people who produce it often drink too heavily of their own product.

    • Replies: @Sean
    The elderly are not so worried about their investments there failing to mature. https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/the-federal-retirement-fund-is-about-to-invest-in-china-some-former-us-military-leaders-object-1.627524

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/07/20/ret-general-robert-spalding-moon-landing-couldnt-happen-todays-deindustrialized-america-weve-lost-all-china/s
    The $600 per week in addition to their normal unemployment benefit for workers laid off due to COVID-19 is for many more than they were gating working, because the big paying jobs have left since China entered a globalised world labour market.
    “In 2017, the Chinese floated a billion dollar denominated bond in Frankfurt and at the same time announced that they were building an aircraft carrier,” Spalding explained. “And our institutional

    investors — our retirement funds — bought the bonds.
     
    The West is a collection of commercial states, with pensions dependant on continuing Chinese growth. Manufacture of screws and fasteners has ceased in America, and circuit boards for the F35 are made in ... China.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/asia/south-china-sea-us-navy-freedom-of-navigation-intl-hnk/index.html

    As William Lind pointed out

    We are not going to fight a war with China, because China is a nuclear power. Nuclear powers do not fight each other conventionally because the risk of escalation to nuclear war is too great.
     
    So thank God for people in the twilight of their lives who can see China without thinking of all the money it is making for their retirement. They may be elderly and female, but they are not old women in the pejorative sense.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    People are so gullible that they’ll believe any nonsense they get from TV, radio, or its current Social Media equivalents.
     
    ... says the guy whom the media have got shitting in his pants over a bad flu year.

    .

    , @MarkinLA
    I don't care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.
  16. Go back 90 days to see what the mainstream media was saying about China. They were in full demolition mode. China’s lying, China’s covering it up, what do you expect from an authoritarian regime. Then, sometime after the Senate voted to acquit Trump, a lightbulb went off: hey, we can pin this entire thing on him. Of course, the commie cold arrived here as we knew it would. And the coverage changed just like that. Now China’s the great hero that pulled off the successful lockdown as opposed to Trump who dithered around. Muh impeachment, round 4.

  17. @dfordoom

    Whether the virus was engineered or not, China made a deliberate choice to spread SARS-2 to the rest of the world.
     
    You need to check your tin-foil hat. It may be malfunctioning.

    So….

    It is impossible to bring manufacturing back and we shouldn’t try…

    China has no aggressive strategies towards the West (as you told A123)…

    And in the past, I heard you say our only hope is to be controlled/ dominated by China…

    If I was as conspiratorial minded as the average Unz commenters, I’d be quite cynical about you by now lol…

    🙂

    I believe AE has expressed a similar desire to be dominated by Islam….what is it with you alt righters 🙂

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It is impossible to bring manufacturing back and we shouldn’t try…
     
    Of course it's possible. I just think it would be much harder to do than people here think, would come at a very high price and probably would not solve any of the problems that people here think it will solve. It's a naïve feelgood idea.



    China has no aggressive strategies towards the West
     
    Of course China has no aggressive strategies towards the West. The United States on the other hand has aggressive intentions towards China. And Russia. And Iran. And anyone else who doesn't want to accept US global hegemony.

    I believe AE has expressed a similar desire to be dominated by Islam….what is it with you alt righters
     
    LOL. I'm no alt-righter.
  18. @dfordoom

    We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.
     
    Until they figure out that ending globalisation will lead to higher prices and a fall in living standards.

    You know, I’ve thought about this. What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.

    If you’re really that concerned about “higher prices,” the income made off the tax in the short term could be easily be returned to consumers for a net zero effect. You could even offer it as a rebate to states in order to offset a certain chunk of their sales taxes. The short term net cost to consumers would literally be zero, and even domestic companies with no foreign competition would see a net benefit.

    In the long term, once companies start moving back to the US, overall prices would eventually start to rise. But that would be more than offset by higher wages due to increased labor scarcity. (This is not speculative, but by definition: GDP = C + I + G + (Ex – Im), and you’ve just eliminated Im; maybe Ex as well but we have a negative trade balance so…). And the short “period of dislocation” where tariffs can have a real negative impact would already be over.

    • Replies: @anon
    What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.

    Prior to 1913 the US federal government was funded almost entirely by two taxes: tariffs and excise taxes such as taxes on whiskey. Tariffs were by far the largest source of revenue to the government prior to the income tax. The US managed to get along with a simple tax structure from 1780 to 1913.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

    The Federal Reserve Bank was created about the same time as the income tax. Probably just coincidence.
    , @d dan

    "What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff."
     
    Unfortunately, no. Trump trade war with China has been going on for over two years, we don't see Americans rushing to make cheap plastic toys nor tennis shoe. Neither is Apple bringing back its iPhone factory nor Microsoft closing its R&D center in China. Even though US trade deficits with China goes down, US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases. Translation: Tran-shipment and out-sourcing of Chinese goods to Vietnam is mitigating those tariffs. Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.

    Tariffs is a trade distorting policy. It is too blunt a tool to help US. The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate .... etc. Using tariffs to solve those problems is like dentist bring a hammer to help you with your toothache due to chronic and pervasive tooth decay.

  19. @Achmed E. Newman
    Of course, the same Neocons who have been trying to keep Russia the bogeyman for years now want to do the same with China, a very stupid thing if it came to real war. OTOH, for the common people, the wet-market/escape-from-the-lab cause of the virus has got to be a factor, but I think the economic problems caused by the hysterical response are a bigger factor in this hate on China.

    See, the resentment in Americans has been building for years, regarding the outsourcing of work, the stealing of trade secrets, and, of course, the continual annoyances from the Cheap China-made Crap. I think it's coming to a head now, with people wondering where the jobs will be once things come out of LOCKDOWN. Americans have been pretty tolerant of a lot of crap over the last 20 years, during the major Globalization. We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.

    I think the economic problems caused by the hysterical response are a bigger factor in this hate on China.

    I agree, but this also shows how irrational people are. It really annoys me that most of the advocates for limiting trade with China have to justify it as a Holy Anti-Communist Crusade or want it in “retaliation” for some kind of garbage going on in Hong Kong or stuff to that effect. It especially puzzles me becuase these are often “America-First” types. If you really wanted to put America First, trade restrictions would not be a penal action leveled against China’s horrible wicked evilness, but a purely domestic calculation: if it is good for America do it, if it isn’t, don’t.

    I rather like China. I think their government has done a far better job than America’s at improving its resident’s lives. I support autarkic policies purely becuase I think they would be good for the American people–and in the long run, for China’s people as well.

  20. My impression is that the media has been putting a more anti-China spin on stories lately. I expect that has made an impact on people’s perceptions. Most people believe what they’re told to.

    As Ron Unz has pointed out, this has been true among both the left and right. I sometimes see confusion about this. When some policy of Trump’s that involves China is criticized, people assume there is a partisan divide about trade with China. But this is confusing cynical partisan politics with actual party policy. Skepticism about China is an area where both sides of the political spectrum more or less agree now.

    Unfortunately the politicians are likely to use this to push various irrational foreign policy actions, rather than just making the U.S. stronger.

  21. @A123

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    You are correct.

    Manufacturing jobs pay more than the other blue/pink collar options for HS graduates. Plus, the deregulation needed to revive manufacturing will produce gains across the board.

    Given how badly the Elitist CCP abuses the workers of China, it is only a matter of time until a USSR-like collapse or even a civil war. The U.S. needs to make sure that it is not dependent on China. The WUHAN-19 virus was a warning, and for once it looks like people are listening.

    PEACE 😷

    You seem to have swallowed too much propaganda about conditions in Chinese factories.

  22. @Ron Unz
    Well, it's a huge relief to have my faith in the ignorance and stupidity of the American public now restored.

    People are so gullible that they'll believe any nonsense they get from TV, radio, or its current Social Media equivalents.

    America's ruling elites are shrewd enough to work hard to cover all the different ideological venues. For example, I was just talking a few days ago with an elderly relative who's been a committed left-liberal her entire life and had regarded Donald Trump as the greatest calamity to befall our country.

    Naturally, she gets her knowledge of the world from NPR, and apparently they've been playing up the "China Bad" theme pretty heavily lately, and she's therefore completely swung around. For the last few years, she'd regarded Russia and Putin as the centers of world evil, but now China is starting to join them.

    But the major problem with propaganda is that it doesn't necessarily impact reality, and the people who produce it often drink too heavily of their own product.

    The elderly are not so worried about their investments there failing to mature. https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/the-federal-retirement-fund-is-about-to-invest-in-china-some-former-us-military-leaders-object-1.627524

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/07/20/ret-general-robert-spalding-moon-landing-couldnt-happen-todays-deindustrialized-america-weve-lost-all-china/s
    The $600 per week in addition to their normal unemployment benefit for workers laid off due to COVID-19 is for many more than they were gating working, because the big paying jobs have left since China entered a globalised world labour market.
    “In 2017, the Chinese floated a billion dollar denominated bond in Frankfurt and at the same time announced that they were building an aircraft carrier,” Spalding explained. “And our institutional

    investors — our retirement funds — bought the bonds.

    The West is a collection of commercial states, with pensions dependant on continuing Chinese growth. Manufacture of screws and fasteners has ceased in America, and circuit boards for the F35 are made in … China.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/asia/south-china-sea-us-navy-freedom-of-navigation-intl-hnk/index.html

    As William Lind pointed out

    We are not going to fight a war with China, because China is a nuclear power. Nuclear powers do not fight each other conventionally because the risk of escalation to nuclear war is too great.

    So thank God for people in the twilight of their lives who can see China without thinking of all the money it is making for their retirement. They may be elderly and female, but they are not old women in the pejorative sense.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    I agree that that is an outrage, but it’s incorrect to blame the investors themselves—the Thrift Savings Plan isn’t directly managed by its beneficiaries like a colonial New England township.
  23. My guess is ‘global opinion’ is going to turn hard against China as the world realizes what the regime of Xi Jinping actually did.

    The example I’d use is: suppose Japan in March 2011 tried to cover up the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. One of spent fuel reactor pools collapsed and caught fire. A radioactive cloud enveloped Tokyo and then drifted over Korea or China. Sorry doesn’t cut it at that point yet that is what China basically did.

    They lost control of a deadly virus ( probably from one of their own labs ) tried to cover it up and rather than ask the world for help they lied about it and let it spread… DELIBERATELY! They could have stopped all travel out of Wuhan but they didn’t. They allowed international travel to continue.

    The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China. This kind of criminal regime cannot be allowed to stand.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    Another USraeli who protests too much ...

    If this thing IS artificial, we know where to look.
    , @d dan

    "The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China."
     
    No, you and your family can volunteer for the war. Please count me and my family out.
    , @obwandiyag
    You are a paid China-did-it Troll and I just won you another mighty quarter per response. "See ya in Mexico," you say.
    , @dfordoom

    If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China.
     
    I feel like I've just wandered onto the set of Dr Strangelove. Any minute now someone will start babbling that the Chinese want to steal our precious bodily fluids.
  24. @Achmed E. Newman
    Higher prices are coming anyway. The drastic lowering of labor costs via outsourcing has already happened a while back. Big-Biz crony-capitalist profits must steadily be increased to keep the US Dollar Ponzi scheme going. For 10 years, now it's been the lowering (yes it can get even lower) of quality to save costs, yet prices have still been rising at a greater rate than the BS BLS numbers.

    With the printing of another few Trillions out of thin air, consumer price increases will be on a higher slope.

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.

    Erm, no.

    In the long run Triffin´s Paradox is no more forgiving than the rocket equation or the First Law. The reserve currency (moreso a weaponized one) penalizes domestic production. By forcing everybody and his mama to work for you, you reduce your own workers to rest-, shift-, clue- and useless panem eaters … the plebs of the States formerly known as United are what Marx (whom I do not usually quote) called “luxury workers” and “counterrevolutionary to the bone”.

    – The Great Depression (and a few other things) was the direct result of the Verailles Treaty (and only WWII ended it) – and the current situation is much worse. (Kozlick held the US addiction to war stems from “overproduction of capital” but it goes back to long before saturation so the classic neoMarxist take can´t be it (it has to do with credit going back to at least Cromwell) – Hudson might be onto something but is a bit above my head; though I see only another World War will get them out of this.)

    – A mercenary army is a necessary corollary. (Geez. Whoda thunk the Founders weren´t stupid?)
    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: “Pay the soldiers first – the rest don´t matter. ” 😛

    “Becoming self-sufficient again” will in the short run mean austerity to make a pig barf – but it´s worth it 😉

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I think that was Septimius Severus' advice. Diocletian's advice on debasing the money is one we've long since internalized.
    , @Mark G.

    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: “Pay the soldiers first – the rest don´t matter."
     
    I actually have a job paying the soldiers. In the end, paying the soldiers wasn't enough. The Roman emperors needed to make sure the economy was healthy enough that they could collect the taxes to pay the soldiers and they didn't do that. More recently, the British didn't do it either. They reached the point where they didn't have enough money to pay for their huge navy and then the Sun did set on the British empire.

    The U.S. is reaching that point also, especially with the jump in the debt with the recent stimulus package. Compare that with the 1920-21 recession after the Spanish flu when there was no stimulus package at all. The economy quickly recovered then. The 700 billion a year U.S. military budget won't last much longer. All the Army people I work with seem oblivious to that and think the status quo will continue forever.
  25. @unit472
    My guess is 'global opinion' is going to turn hard against China as the world realizes what the regime of Xi Jinping actually did.

    The example I'd use is: suppose Japan in March 2011 tried to cover up the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. One of spent fuel reactor pools collapsed and caught fire. A radioactive cloud enveloped Tokyo and then drifted over Korea or China. Sorry doesn't cut it at that point yet that is what China basically did.

    They lost control of a deadly virus ( probably from one of their own labs ) tried to cover it up and rather than ask the world for help they lied about it and let it spread... DELIBERATELY! They could have stopped all travel out of Wuhan but they didn't. They allowed international travel to continue.

    The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China. This kind of criminal regime cannot be allowed to stand.

    Another USraeli who protests too much …

    If this thing IS artificial, we know where to look.

  26. anonymous[898] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    I'm not convinced. There are plenty of arguments against globalisation but the economic arguments are rather weak. It's horrible to admit this but I think that overall, in material terms, we may well be better off with globalisation.

    Economic self-sufficiency may just mean a manufacturing sector that will need bailouts on a regular basis. It will be a manufacturing sector with the taxpayer footing the bill (not very libertarian). Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic). The consumer and the taxpayer will get screwed while a few billionaires will be making out like bandits. Basically a way of siphoning taxpayers' money into corporate pockets.

    Australia used to be surprisingly self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing. What that meant in practice is that we had a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from. Now Australians have been effectively banned from the global marketplace (thanks to government interference in free trade and free consumer choice) so we're back to having a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you're intending to fight a war. Otherwise it's likely to be costly and futile. Plus, it's socialism.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war.

    If a nation is not ready to fight a war, then that nation will be at the mercy of other nations. This is a very dangerous place to be for the deposed top dog.

  27. anon[134] • Disclaimer says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    You know, I've thought about this. What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.

    If you're really that concerned about "higher prices," the income made off the tax in the short term could be easily be returned to consumers for a net zero effect. You could even offer it as a rebate to states in order to offset a certain chunk of their sales taxes. The short term net cost to consumers would literally be zero, and even domestic companies with no foreign competition would see a net benefit.

    In the long term, once companies start moving back to the US, overall prices would eventually start to rise. But that would be more than offset by higher wages due to increased labor scarcity. (This is not speculative, but by definition: GDP = C + I + G + (Ex - Im), and you've just eliminated Im; maybe Ex as well but we have a negative trade balance so...). And the short "period of dislocation" where tariffs can have a real negative impact would already be over.

    What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.

    Prior to 1913 the US federal government was funded almost entirely by two taxes: tariffs and excise taxes such as taxes on whiskey. Tariffs were by far the largest source of revenue to the government prior to the income tax. The US managed to get along with a simple tax structure from 1780 to 1913.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

    The Federal Reserve Bank was created about the same time as the income tax. Probably just coincidence.

  28. @Ron Unz
    Well, it's a huge relief to have my faith in the ignorance and stupidity of the American public now restored.

    People are so gullible that they'll believe any nonsense they get from TV, radio, or its current Social Media equivalents.

    America's ruling elites are shrewd enough to work hard to cover all the different ideological venues. For example, I was just talking a few days ago with an elderly relative who's been a committed left-liberal her entire life and had regarded Donald Trump as the greatest calamity to befall our country.

    Naturally, she gets her knowledge of the world from NPR, and apparently they've been playing up the "China Bad" theme pretty heavily lately, and she's therefore completely swung around. For the last few years, she'd regarded Russia and Putin as the centers of world evil, but now China is starting to join them.

    But the major problem with propaganda is that it doesn't necessarily impact reality, and the people who produce it often drink too heavily of their own product.

    People are so gullible that they’ll believe any nonsense they get from TV, radio, or its current Social Media equivalents.

    … says the guy whom the media have got shitting in his pants over a bad flu year.

    .

  29. I think our initial moves to build relations with China and was a smart move. What was not smart was the careless administration of that process for cheaper goods as the US dollar was losing force — by the decreased numbers of citizens being employed —

    I find it a hard press o blame China for taking advantage of US corporations selling out the US for a larger slice of cash —-

    And again , it never fails, that harping about China when the real issue is here in the states. Now there are issues: intellectual property rights, financial manipulation (?) . . .

    But as indicated by many of you over the last several months — screeching bout government financial manipulation via bailout an repo purchases — expecting government to bail out what involve your particular market . . .

    —————————–

    As for blacks, don’t be obtuse: the direct hard to blacks from China is minimal compared to that done by their own and this is a perfect example — blacks are not responsible for the careless management of use wealth overseas . . . not the over extended military policies . . .

    China did not bar blacks from an education an then bemoan their lack of education, china did not use the US criminal justice system to undermine their life in the US or relegate them out of the main and then quizzle about why they are not part of the same system . . .

    Let’s at least pretend to have some integrity.

  30. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    You know, I've thought about this. What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.

    If you're really that concerned about "higher prices," the income made off the tax in the short term could be easily be returned to consumers for a net zero effect. You could even offer it as a rebate to states in order to offset a certain chunk of their sales taxes. The short term net cost to consumers would literally be zero, and even domestic companies with no foreign competition would see a net benefit.

    In the long term, once companies start moving back to the US, overall prices would eventually start to rise. But that would be more than offset by higher wages due to increased labor scarcity. (This is not speculative, but by definition: GDP = C + I + G + (Ex - Im), and you've just eliminated Im; maybe Ex as well but we have a negative trade balance so...). And the short "period of dislocation" where tariffs can have a real negative impact would already be over.

    “What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff.”

    Unfortunately, no. Trump trade war with China has been going on for over two years, we don’t see Americans rushing to make cheap plastic toys nor tennis shoe. Neither is Apple bringing back its iPhone factory nor Microsoft closing its R&D center in China. Even though US trade deficits with China goes down, US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases. Translation: Tran-shipment and out-sourcing of Chinese goods to Vietnam is mitigating those tariffs. Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.

    Tariffs is a trade distorting policy. It is too blunt a tool to help US. The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate …. etc. Using tariffs to solve those problems is like dentist bring a hammer to help you with your toothache due to chronic and pervasive tooth decay.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit. Starting with steel. Ask those brilliant Californians who had their Bay Bridge renovated with China steel. Whoops! A $34 million legal settlement later, California's learned its lesson.

    And have we forgotten about the Chinese drywall disaster of the aughts? I could go on. Bikes, dog food, toothpaste. Kids toys. Chinese auto parts is worthy of 2000 words by itself. Maybe tariffs can be justified on public safety grounds.
    , @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases... Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.
     
    You are completely correct, which is yet another reason why the China-bashers are in the wrong. We need tariffs on goods from all countries with substantially lower labor costs, not just China.


    The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate …. etc.
     
    This is also true, but that fact in no way implies tariffs wouldn't be effective. The whole point is that they make prodcution in the US artificially more competitive than it would be otherwise. I would say thats a good thing.

    Also, three of the problems you cited (welfare-ism, over-financialization, and "economy") are themselves worsened by the manufacturing collapse.
  31. Tariffs is a trade distorting policy. It is too blunt a tool to help … Using tariffs to solve those problems is like dentist bring a hammer to help you with your toothache due to chronic and pervasive tooth decay.

    Itis less blunt that military pressure, so although slowing down Chise grown is probabally not going to work it is worth a try.

    The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate …. etc.

    No, if China was not in the process of overtaking the US none of those things would be terribly difficult to deal with. Clipping China’s wings while reforming the US is the really difficult thing.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "Itis less blunt that military pressure, so although slowing down Chise grown is probabally not going to work it is worth a try."
     
    No, if you know something isn't going to work, don't try it. Further, tariff has its drawbacks. It increases the cost of importers, which usually is being passed to consumers. Secondly, it increases the cost of domestic assembly and manufacturers who rely on parts and intermediate products from China, making them less competitive internationally. Thirdly, it hurts US exporters when China retaliates - remember the $26 billions bailout to farmers? It also makes products of US exporters less desirable as countries view US as a less reliable country, a rule-breaker of WTO and trade norms. Finally, it distracts people and let politician get away from talking about the painful and real reforms.

    "No, if China was not in the process of overtaking the US none of those things would be terribly difficult to deal with. Clipping China’s wings while reforming the US is the really difficult thing."
     
    The first step of solving a problem consists of PROPER diagnosis of the cause of the problem. If you identify the wrong cause, you are wasting precious opportunities, resources and time, making it even harder or even impossible to tackling the problem later. China is NOT the cause of any of the US domestic problems. On the contrary, China could even be our friend if we treat them with respects. For example, China is the biggest and fastest growing consumer market in the world (e.g. biggest buyers of cars, smart phones, computers, electronics,...). She could actually help the growth of some US exporters and service companies, providing employment to many manufacturing and service workers. Unfortunately, due to the idiot US policies, Chinese today prefer to buy high-tech products from EU, Japan and Korea, agricultural products from Brazil and Russia, airplanes from Airbus,... See who is the loser now?

    Just a bit of info for the readers: from 2001 (when China entered WTO) till last year, China and US increased about the same amounts of wealth for both economies. But why do we only hear that China is doing so well and its people improves their lives, whereas in US, we only heard complaints that wages is stagnant? Where do you think all the wealth being created in US economy has gone to? Hints: wars, corporations, wall streets...

    So, face it, the "blame China" game is not going to get US anywhere except to satisfy the psychological needs of the China-haters like you.

  32. @unit472
    My guess is 'global opinion' is going to turn hard against China as the world realizes what the regime of Xi Jinping actually did.

    The example I'd use is: suppose Japan in March 2011 tried to cover up the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. One of spent fuel reactor pools collapsed and caught fire. A radioactive cloud enveloped Tokyo and then drifted over Korea or China. Sorry doesn't cut it at that point yet that is what China basically did.

    They lost control of a deadly virus ( probably from one of their own labs ) tried to cover it up and rather than ask the world for help they lied about it and let it spread... DELIBERATELY! They could have stopped all travel out of Wuhan but they didn't. They allowed international travel to continue.

    The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China. This kind of criminal regime cannot be allowed to stand.

    “The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China.”

    No, you and your family can volunteer for the war. Please count me and my family out.

    • Replies: @unit472
    Sorry but it doesn't work like that. You and your family get included. In your case I hope as combat infantry in the first wave.
  33. @dfordoom

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    I'm not convinced. There are plenty of arguments against globalisation but the economic arguments are rather weak. It's horrible to admit this but I think that overall, in material terms, we may well be better off with globalisation.

    Economic self-sufficiency may just mean a manufacturing sector that will need bailouts on a regular basis. It will be a manufacturing sector with the taxpayer footing the bill (not very libertarian). Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic). The consumer and the taxpayer will get screwed while a few billionaires will be making out like bandits. Basically a way of siphoning taxpayers' money into corporate pockets.

    Australia used to be surprisingly self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing. What that meant in practice is that we had a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from. Now Australians have been effectively banned from the global marketplace (thanks to government interference in free trade and free consumer choice) so we're back to having a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you're intending to fight a war. Otherwise it's likely to be costly and futile. Plus, it's socialism.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    That is not entirely true. A lot of automotive firsts came out of America long before there was any significant auto imports especially pre-WWII. The problem was that the companies were no longer run by car guys but by finance guys who think cost cutting and “economies of scale” were the most important issue. The lack of competition just made it easier to continue with those policies.

  34. @Ron Unz
    Well, it's a huge relief to have my faith in the ignorance and stupidity of the American public now restored.

    People are so gullible that they'll believe any nonsense they get from TV, radio, or its current Social Media equivalents.

    America's ruling elites are shrewd enough to work hard to cover all the different ideological venues. For example, I was just talking a few days ago with an elderly relative who's been a committed left-liberal her entire life and had regarded Donald Trump as the greatest calamity to befall our country.

    Naturally, she gets her knowledge of the world from NPR, and apparently they've been playing up the "China Bad" theme pretty heavily lately, and she's therefore completely swung around. For the last few years, she'd regarded Russia and Putin as the centers of world evil, but now China is starting to join them.

    But the major problem with propaganda is that it doesn't necessarily impact reality, and the people who produce it often drink too heavily of their own product.

    I don’t care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

    • Replies: @iffen

    I don’t care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

     

    I'm with you.

    The ends justifies the means.

    Always has, always will.
    , @dfordoom

    If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.
     
    Quite right. What we desperately need is more lies. The trouble with politics these days is that it's too damned honest. Why would you tell the people the truth? They're just suckers. Never give a sucker an even break.

    Of course in order for the lies to be believed it will be necessary to silence the truth. But no problem -who needs freedom of speech anyway?

    Just remember, Comrade, the end justifies the means. Lie, cheat, steal. It's all good!

    I guess I'll be seeing you at the next Old Bolsheviks Re-Union?
  35. @MarkinLA
    I don't care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

    I don’t care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

    I’m with you.

    The ends justifies the means.

    Always has, always will.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The ends justifies the means.

    Always has, always will.


    I know that is meant as sarcasm but when it comes to MY country getting it's economy back where it should be then we have to make a decision. Obviously, telling the truth about offshoring doesn't work with all the paid shills for Wall Street and the oligarchs telling their lies constantly and buying the politicians.
  36. @Tusk
    I'm with David Cole on this whole bioweapon thesis:

    A 2017 study by scientists from the University of New South Wales and the University of Texas, Austin, specifically identified Wuhan as a “high risk area” for zoonotic pandemics because of its wet markets. The study recommended the closure of Wuhan’s live-animal markets, but the authors admitted that such actions would meet “public disapproval” (a reference to the Chinese public’s revolt against government attempts to shutter the markets after SARS).

     

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous. China = BAD so it's their bioweapon. US = BAD so it's their bioweapon. Premesis for these bioweapon takes have consistantly being wrong (It's a US weapon look it's destabilising China and Iran/Oh yes that was the point but it's gotten away from the US this is definitive proof it's a bioweapon!) so it's just looking ridiculous now.

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous.

    That’s true.

    But the issue is whether the virus was accidentally released from the Wuhan Biolab. The MSM won’t touch the story and has been actively deplatforming it. But the circumstantial evidence is that:

    (a) According to its own published research, the Wuhan Biolab (Dr. Shi Zhengli), was experimenting with splicing elements of SARS (“S-proteins”) with collected samples of natural bat coronavirus to allow the virus to cross species (Per her 2015 Paper in Nature);

    (b) The Wujan coronavirus gene sequence which was published by a Chinese lab on January 11, 2020, demonstrated it had sequences identical to the documented samples collected by the Chinese for research;

    (c) The bats that host the virus do not exist in Wujan; the “wet market” in Wujan did not sell bats; and contact tracing shows that “patient zero” could not have come from the wet market;

    (d) As soon as these facts came out, the Chinese ordered the samples destroyed and put a gag order on all discussion of the virus or its origin;

    (e) Before the gag order, a high-level Chinese administrator (Xu Bo) and a researcher at the biolab (Chen Qanjiao), revealed that the Chinese themselves suspected the virus had leaked from the biolab.

    (f) A female graduate student who worked at the biolab, Huang Yanling, is suspected of being “patient zero” and having died of the virus. The Chinese deny this and scrubbed her info. But she’s missing and there’s no proof of life.

    This documentary is by the anti-China Epoch Times and has some over-dramatic bits, but it’s still a good summary of the known facts.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @utu
    Per her 2015 Paper in Nature. - It was not her paper. The chief author was Dr. Ralph Baric of University of North Carolina where the work was done. The paper had 15 co-authors out of which two were Chinese Zhengli-Li Shi and Xing-Yi Ge from Wuhan Institute off Virology. See:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

    In Dr. Ralph Baric's CV you can find that he cooperated with DARPA giving invited talks on engineering of microorganisms in 2003 and 2005:

    https://media-speakerfile-pre.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/cc4e5e5d442320c20c7f76a0c3cadce51445358867.pdf
    Invited Speaker: Engineering the Genomes of Microorganisms. DARPA Meeting on “Synthetic Biology”, Menlo Park, California. March 2003.

    Synthetic Coronaviruses. Biohacking: Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies, June 2005. Washington, DC. DARPA/MITRE sponsored event. Invited Speaker
     
    One of his grants, SERCEB U54AI057157-0 is titled "Platforms for the Synthesis and Testing of Emerging Zoonotic Viruses". SERCEB = Southeast Regional Centers of Excellence for Biodefense

    The publication of the 2015 paper in Nature Medicine raised alarm and criticisms as Baric violated the moratorium on the gains of function research:

    https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/moratorium-on-gain-of-function-research-36564
    In the wake of a handful of biosafety lapses at federal research facilities, the US government is temporarily halting funding for new studies aiming to give novel functions to influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses

    Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)
    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502
     
    Baric's defense was that the research began before the moratorium was implemented under Obama in 2014.

    What really is interesting how in January 2020 Ralph Baric responded to the emerging Covid-19 epidemic:

    “US residents should be aware about the #2019nCoV but be more concerned about the flu virus. Get your flu shot if you haven’t already!⁩ ”
    https://twitter.com/david_rmartinez/status/1222502006356684800?s=12
     
  37. It’s remarkable to me how the story of COVID-19 has been hijacked to promote progressivism in China.

    People are using it strangely to talk about how Africans are mistreated in Guangzhou. (I wonder if the CIA could be promoting this one) Ostensible conservatives are now demanding that Hollywood films not be censored in China, and griping about how the black character of Finn was airbrushed from the Star Wars poster in China, five years ago. It’s really odd.

    A lot of expats have turned on China like pitbulls, probably nursing a personal grudge about being denied citizenship there or something.

    • Replies: @Daemon
    They're desperately probing for weak points since nothing they've tried - economic, political, covert - in the past 20+ years has worked so far. So they really have nothing to lose by trying everything.

    20 YEARS. That's enough time to drive anyone crazy.
  38. @A123

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    You are correct.

    Manufacturing jobs pay more than the other blue/pink collar options for HS graduates. Plus, the deregulation needed to revive manufacturing will produce gains across the board.

    Given how badly the Elitist CCP abuses the workers of China, it is only a matter of time until a USSR-like collapse or even a civil war. The U.S. needs to make sure that it is not dependent on China. The WUHAN-19 virus was a warning, and for once it looks like people are listening.

    PEACE 😷

    The USSR collapsed because of ethnic fissures and elite defection. The USSR was only 50.78% Russian. China is 92% Han. In China, economic reforms have created great wealth which is used to retain the loyalty of military cadres, as the military have a controlling interest in many companies.

    As to civil war, Chinese TFR is too low for civil war. The general mood in China is noticeably more optimistic than the general mood in the West – and quite understandably so, as the Chinese have so far not pursued replacement migration. Plus, the Chinese have a lot of technological tools to prevent civil war, such as the social credit system. The historical cycle of instability in China is likely something of an anachronism now.

  39. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    I'm not convinced. There are plenty of arguments against globalisation but the economic arguments are rather weak. It's horrible to admit this but I think that overall, in material terms, we may well be better off with globalisation.

    Economic self-sufficiency may just mean a manufacturing sector that will need bailouts on a regular basis. It will be a manufacturing sector with the taxpayer footing the bill (not very libertarian). Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic). The consumer and the taxpayer will get screwed while a few billionaires will be making out like bandits. Basically a way of siphoning taxpayers' money into corporate pockets.

    Australia used to be surprisingly self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing. What that meant in practice is that we had a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from. Now Australians have been effectively banned from the global marketplace (thanks to government interference in free trade and free consumer choice) so we're back to having a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you're intending to fight a war. Otherwise it's likely to be costly and futile. Plus, it's socialism.

    >Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic).

    Couldn’t, say, a 10 yr plan of incremental step-ups in tariffs accomplish this? Can do minor tweaks on industry by industry basis as needed. Gives enough time to transition and minimize supply disruptions.

    And goal wouldn’t be total economic isolation (i.e. zero trade), just a very significant re-balancing.

  40. d dan says:
    @Sean

    Tariffs is a trade distorting policy. It is too blunt a tool to help ... Using tariffs to solve those problems is like dentist bring a hammer to help you with your toothache due to chronic and pervasive tooth decay.
     
    Itis less blunt that military pressure, so although slowing down Chise grown is probabally not going to work it is worth a try.

    The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate …. etc.

     
    No, if China was not in the process of overtaking the US none of those things would be terribly difficult to deal with. Clipping China's wings while reforming the US is the really difficult thing.

    “Itis less blunt that military pressure, so although slowing down Chise grown is probabally not going to work it is worth a try.”

    No, if you know something isn’t going to work, don’t try it. Further, tariff has its drawbacks. It increases the cost of importers, which usually is being passed to consumers. Secondly, it increases the cost of domestic assembly and manufacturers who rely on parts and intermediate products from China, making them less competitive internationally. Thirdly, it hurts US exporters when China retaliates – remember the $26 billions bailout to farmers? It also makes products of US exporters less desirable as countries view US as a less reliable country, a rule-breaker of WTO and trade norms. Finally, it distracts people and let politician get away from talking about the painful and real reforms.

    “No, if China was not in the process of overtaking the US none of those things would be terribly difficult to deal with. Clipping China’s wings while reforming the US is the really difficult thing.”

    The first step of solving a problem consists of PROPER diagnosis of the cause of the problem. If you identify the wrong cause, you are wasting precious opportunities, resources and time, making it even harder or even impossible to tackling the problem later. China is NOT the cause of any of the US domestic problems. On the contrary, China could even be our friend if we treat them with respects. For example, China is the biggest and fastest growing consumer market in the world (e.g. biggest buyers of cars, smart phones, computers, electronics,…). She could actually help the growth of some US exporters and service companies, providing employment to many manufacturing and service workers. Unfortunately, due to the idiot US policies, Chinese today prefer to buy high-tech products from EU, Japan and Korea, agricultural products from Brazil and Russia, airplanes from Airbus,… See who is the loser now?

    Just a bit of info for the readers: from 2001 (when China entered WTO) till last year, China and US increased about the same amounts of wealth for both economies. But why do we only hear that China is doing so well and its people improves their lives, whereas in US, we only heard complaints that wages is stagnant? Where do you think all the wealth being created in US economy has gone to? Hints: wars, corporations, wall streets…

    So, face it, the “blame China” game is not going to get US anywhere except to satisfy the psychological needs of the China-haters like you.

    • Replies: @Sean

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/07/20/ret-general-robert-spalding-moon-landing-couldnt-happen-todays-deindustrialized-america-weve-lost-all-china/
    China entered the WTO in 2001, from that time period to 2017, we lost 78,000 factories. We unemployed 3.4 million manufacturing jobs. […] Over-leveraging and subsequent international liquidation of assets such as American factories or refineries destroy the economies of communities build around such assets, said Spalding
     
    Hence the Deaths of Despair, and associated illnesses. The healthcare industry in the US is highly profitable though.

    She could actually help the growth of some US exporters and service companies, providing employment to many manufacturing and service workers.
     
    Not manufacturing screws and fasteners , which the US has simply ceased to make. Some of the F-35 circuit boards are manufactured by Huawei too. Smart money has long been going going gone to China
    https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/the-federal-retirement-fund-is-about-to-invest-in-china-some-former-us-military-leaders-object-1.627524

    Where do you think all the wealth being created in US economy has gone to? Hints: ... corporations, wall streets…

     

    Those are the very ones who want free trade with China!
  41. Sean says:
    @d dan

    "Itis less blunt that military pressure, so although slowing down Chise grown is probabally not going to work it is worth a try."
     
    No, if you know something isn't going to work, don't try it. Further, tariff has its drawbacks. It increases the cost of importers, which usually is being passed to consumers. Secondly, it increases the cost of domestic assembly and manufacturers who rely on parts and intermediate products from China, making them less competitive internationally. Thirdly, it hurts US exporters when China retaliates - remember the $26 billions bailout to farmers? It also makes products of US exporters less desirable as countries view US as a less reliable country, a rule-breaker of WTO and trade norms. Finally, it distracts people and let politician get away from talking about the painful and real reforms.

    "No, if China was not in the process of overtaking the US none of those things would be terribly difficult to deal with. Clipping China’s wings while reforming the US is the really difficult thing."
     
    The first step of solving a problem consists of PROPER diagnosis of the cause of the problem. If you identify the wrong cause, you are wasting precious opportunities, resources and time, making it even harder or even impossible to tackling the problem later. China is NOT the cause of any of the US domestic problems. On the contrary, China could even be our friend if we treat them with respects. For example, China is the biggest and fastest growing consumer market in the world (e.g. biggest buyers of cars, smart phones, computers, electronics,...). She could actually help the growth of some US exporters and service companies, providing employment to many manufacturing and service workers. Unfortunately, due to the idiot US policies, Chinese today prefer to buy high-tech products from EU, Japan and Korea, agricultural products from Brazil and Russia, airplanes from Airbus,... See who is the loser now?

    Just a bit of info for the readers: from 2001 (when China entered WTO) till last year, China and US increased about the same amounts of wealth for both economies. But why do we only hear that China is doing so well and its people improves their lives, whereas in US, we only heard complaints that wages is stagnant? Where do you think all the wealth being created in US economy has gone to? Hints: wars, corporations, wall streets...

    So, face it, the "blame China" game is not going to get US anywhere except to satisfy the psychological needs of the China-haters like you.

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/07/20/ret-general-robert-spalding-moon-landing-couldnt-happen-todays-deindustrialized-america-weve-lost-all-china/
    China entered the WTO in 2001, from that time period to 2017, we lost 78,000 factories. We unemployed 3.4 million manufacturing jobs. […] Over-leveraging and subsequent international liquidation of assets such as American factories or refineries destroy the economies of communities build around such assets, said Spalding

    Hence the Deaths of Despair, and associated illnesses. The healthcare industry in the US is highly profitable though.

    She could actually help the growth of some US exporters and service companies, providing employment to many manufacturing and service workers.

    Not manufacturing screws and fasteners , which the US has simply ceased to make. Some of the F-35 circuit boards are manufactured by Huawei too. Smart money has long been going going gone to China
    https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/the-federal-retirement-fund-is-about-to-invest-in-china-some-former-us-military-leaders-object-1.627524

    Where do you think all the wealth being created in US economy has gone to? Hints: … corporations, wall streets…

    Those are the very ones who want free trade with China!

  42. @Tusk
    I'm with David Cole on this whole bioweapon thesis:

    A 2017 study by scientists from the University of New South Wales and the University of Texas, Austin, specifically identified Wuhan as a “high risk area” for zoonotic pandemics because of its wet markets. The study recommended the closure of Wuhan’s live-animal markets, but the authors admitted that such actions would meet “public disapproval” (a reference to the Chinese public’s revolt against government attempts to shutter the markets after SARS).

     

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous. China = BAD so it's their bioweapon. US = BAD so it's their bioweapon. Premesis for these bioweapon takes have consistantly being wrong (It's a US weapon look it's destabilising China and Iran/Oh yes that was the point but it's gotten away from the US this is definitive proof it's a bioweapon!) so it's just looking ridiculous now.

    The only valid reason for believing it’s a US bioweapon is that it’s unfit for purpose and has resulted in massive blowback.

    In mitigation: if it was a US bioweapon it wouldn’t be finished yet, because politicians would still be insisting that some part of the development program was housed in their state.

    Cole is being gulled into asking the wrong question: he is failing Pynchon’s “Proverbs for Paranoids #3“…

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t’ need to worry about answers.

    The most useful question is not ‘Bioweapon or no?‘, or even ‘US Bioweapon, or Chinaman?

    The most useful question is ‘When and where did it start?’.

    We now know to a very high degree of certainty that
     • the Wuhan and Italian strains are siblings (rather than the Italian strain being a descendant); and
     • the parent of both dates to September 2019 in Yunnan province and the Wuhan strain probably existed within a month of that timeframe.

    This is actually a very good fit with the failed epidemiological models: they assumed that the novel pathogen emerged with the first symptomatic cases in Wuhan, which is what gave them such a high estimate of R[0] as symptomatic cases emerged. It seemed to emerge out of nowhere and ramp up rapidly – but that was entirely an artifact of how the numbers were obtained.

    We now know that the vast majority of covid19 infections have few or no symptoms and resolve quickly in healthy adults. We also know that when the infection is low- or no-symptom, there is a very high probability that the infection is undetectable after the fact (e.g., serological tests don’t find evidence of antibodies).

    So it’s very consistent with a pathogen that began life in October, then had two months of unconstrained growth; it produced few symptoms in the vast bulk of people (who went undetected or were considered to have a cold or seasonal flu). Occasionally it produced lethal pneumonia in sick elderly people, which was easy to write off as standard end-of-life opportunistic pneumonia.

    Then there was a ‘cluster’ of cases centred on a place that was being actively monitored (Wuhan) and it was off to the races – with a very large reservoir of already-infected to subsequently furnish ‘new cases’.

    And here we are: nobody dares admit that this timeline makes much more sense; that the high detection of antibodies in otherwise-asymp cases is evidence that a very large proportion of the population has already had it – as I pointed out (on March 24th) would be the case for a fast-spreading infection that rarely killed anyone, that was spreading unconstrained since early December at the earliest.

  43. @nokangaroos
    Erm, no.

    In the long run Triffin´s Paradox is no more forgiving than the rocket equation or the First Law. The reserve currency (moreso a weaponized one) penalizes domestic production. By forcing everybody and his mama to work for you, you reduce your own workers to rest-, shift-, clue- and useless panem eaters ... the plebs of the States formerly known as United are what Marx (whom I do not usually quote) called "luxury workers" and "counterrevolutionary to the bone".

    - The Great Depression (and a few other things) was the direct result of the Verailles Treaty (and only WWII ended it) - and the current situation is much worse. (Kozlick held the US addiction to war stems from "overproduction of capital" but it goes back to long before saturation so the classic neoMarxist take can´t be it (it has to do with credit going back to at least Cromwell) - Hudson might be onto something but is a bit above my head; though I see only another World War will get them out of this.)

    - A mercenary army is a necessary corollary. (Geez. Whoda thunk the Founders weren´t stupid?)
    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: "Pay the soldiers first - the rest don´t matter. " :P

    "Becoming self-sufficient again" will in the short run mean austerity to make a pig barf - but it´s worth it ;)

    I think that was Septimius Severus’ advice. Diocletian’s advice on debasing the money is one we’ve long since internalized.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    If there´s no more fault to find - thanks :D
  44. @iffen

    I don’t care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

     

    I'm with you.

    The ends justifies the means.

    Always has, always will.

    The ends justifies the means.

    Always has, always will.

    I know that is meant as sarcasm but when it comes to MY country getting it’s economy back where it should be then we have to make a decision. Obviously, telling the truth about offshoring doesn’t work with all the paid shills for Wall Street and the oligarchs telling their lies constantly and buying the politicians.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I know that is meant as sarcasm

    No

    we have to make a decision.

    You don't believe that the deciders are suddenly going to start making decisions based upon what is good for the country as a whole, do you?
  45. “Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war.”

    No. In fact, it’s the safest and healthiest place to be in . . . and while total self sufficiency is not possible, The US should be preparing for a far more hostile international environment. The invasions and their aftermath have revealed some deep weaknesses by way of perception and reality.

    By any “means necessary” is a reference to that has very limited usefulness in most environments. Because as the last twenty years have demonstrated those of you who thought war was the appropriate response to nonactors and non threatening states —

    as means of making a point —

    devastatingly wrong.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The US should be preparing for a far more hostile international environment.
     
    The only country creating a far more hostile international environment is the United States.
  46. @Tusk
    I'm with David Cole on this whole bioweapon thesis:

    A 2017 study by scientists from the University of New South Wales and the University of Texas, Austin, specifically identified Wuhan as a “high risk area” for zoonotic pandemics because of its wet markets. The study recommended the closure of Wuhan’s live-animal markets, but the authors admitted that such actions would meet “public disapproval” (a reference to the Chinese public’s revolt against government attempts to shutter the markets after SARS).

     

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous. China = BAD so it's their bioweapon. US = BAD so it's their bioweapon. Premesis for these bioweapon takes have consistantly being wrong (It's a US weapon look it's destabilising China and Iran/Oh yes that was the point but it's gotten away from the US this is definitive proof it's a bioweapon!) so it's just looking ridiculous now.

    Notice how you defend the things that your owners, the very rich, the powers that be, want you to defend.

    They want you to say:
    1. It’s not a US bioweapon.
    2. It’s just the flu.
    3. China did it.

    What they don’t want you saying is that it is a US bioweapon. So congratulations on doing your master’s bidding.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    Let's go over your crazy reply:

    1. It’s not a US bioweapon.
     
    It's not a bioweapon, so it doesn't matter if it's fictionally US or Chinese (It's neither) because it's not a bioweapon. It's a disease that originated from the unhealthy habits of the Chinese population who don't have the decency to limit cross-contamination.

    2. It’s just the flu.
     
    Nice strawman, where did I say that again?

    3. China did it.
     
    What did 'China' do? I don't see how China, as a state, has the capacity to do anything. The disease originated in China because of their lifestyle habits. I'm not blaming them as if it is a sinister plot which they concocted (though I will blame them for helping it spread) but they are responsible for birthing it.

    I'm not even American so I don't care what people think about America, China or the Jews. If anything your schizo disinfo ranting is probably cointelpro approved.
  47. @Ultrafart the Brave
    Seriously, if these figures actually represent the mindset of the general American population, then I would have to conclude that the average American is not very bright.

    Just sayin'.

    You’re just sayin’ shit.

    It proves the exact opposite. The wisdom of the common everyday American.

  48. @d dan

    "What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff."
     
    Unfortunately, no. Trump trade war with China has been going on for over two years, we don't see Americans rushing to make cheap plastic toys nor tennis shoe. Neither is Apple bringing back its iPhone factory nor Microsoft closing its R&D center in China. Even though US trade deficits with China goes down, US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases. Translation: Tran-shipment and out-sourcing of Chinese goods to Vietnam is mitigating those tariffs. Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.

    Tariffs is a trade distorting policy. It is too blunt a tool to help US. The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate .... etc. Using tariffs to solve those problems is like dentist bring a hammer to help you with your toothache due to chronic and pervasive tooth decay.

    Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit. Starting with steel. Ask those brilliant Californians who had their Bay Bridge renovated with China steel. Whoops! A $34 million legal settlement later, California’s learned its lesson.

    And have we forgotten about the Chinese drywall disaster of the aughts? I could go on. Bikes, dog food, toothpaste. Kids toys. Chinese auto parts is worthy of 2000 words by itself. Maybe tariffs can be justified on public safety grounds.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @d dan

    "Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit..."
     
    Sure, if you like to do that, go ahead. China is not cruising their warships down the Mississippi River to force any American to buy anything from them. They are not pointing a gun at your head, right?

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own. You probably can guess what those consumers, including me and my family will choose.

    But I suspect this is not your intention. What you really want is for the government to use its fascist and coercive powers to force millions against their wills.

    Enough said.
  49. @unit472
    My guess is 'global opinion' is going to turn hard against China as the world realizes what the regime of Xi Jinping actually did.

    The example I'd use is: suppose Japan in March 2011 tried to cover up the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. One of spent fuel reactor pools collapsed and caught fire. A radioactive cloud enveloped Tokyo and then drifted over Korea or China. Sorry doesn't cut it at that point yet that is what China basically did.

    They lost control of a deadly virus ( probably from one of their own labs ) tried to cover it up and rather than ask the world for help they lied about it and let it spread... DELIBERATELY! They could have stopped all travel out of Wuhan but they didn't. They allowed international travel to continue.

    The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China. This kind of criminal regime cannot be allowed to stand.

    You are a paid China-did-it Troll and I just won you another mighty quarter per response. “See ya in Mexico,” you say.

  50. @Achmed E. Newman
    Of course, the same Neocons who have been trying to keep Russia the bogeyman for years now want to do the same with China, a very stupid thing if it came to real war. OTOH, for the common people, the wet-market/escape-from-the-lab cause of the virus has got to be a factor, but I think the economic problems caused by the hysterical response are a bigger factor in this hate on China.

    See, the resentment in Americans has been building for years, regarding the outsourcing of work, the stealing of trade secrets, and, of course, the continual annoyances from the Cheap China-made Crap. I think it's coming to a head now, with people wondering where the jobs will be once things come out of LOCKDOWN. Americans have been pretty tolerant of a lot of crap over the last 20 years, during the major Globalization. We can only hope that the Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest will result in the common people coming out hard against Globalization.

    We can hope, AE. But even if the common people finally start speaking out against globalization, what will it matter if the corporate and financial elites, and their politician and media water carriers, decide that globalization is still where the power and riches are for them?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Millions of Americans together have a LOT of power, but they don't know that. It's best for the elites that they never know that. I don't hold out a lot of hope, as Americans seem to be just fine with the Bread & Circuses, for now at least.
  51. Tusk says:
    @obwandiyag
    Notice how you defend the things that your owners, the very rich, the powers that be, want you to defend.

    They want you to say:
    1. It's not a US bioweapon.
    2. It's just the flu.
    3. China did it.

    What they don't want you saying is that it is a US bioweapon. So congratulations on doing your master's bidding.

    Let’s go over your crazy reply:

    1. It’s not a US bioweapon.

    It’s not a bioweapon, so it doesn’t matter if it’s fictionally US or Chinese (It’s neither) because it’s not a bioweapon. It’s a disease that originated from the unhealthy habits of the Chinese population who don’t have the decency to limit cross-contamination.

    2. It’s just the flu.

    Nice strawman, where did I say that again?

    3. China did it.

    What did ‘China’ do? I don’t see how China, as a state, has the capacity to do anything. The disease originated in China because of their lifestyle habits. I’m not blaming them as if it is a sinister plot which they concocted (though I will blame them for helping it spread) but they are responsible for birthing it.

    I’m not even American so I don’t care what people think about America, China or the Jews. If anything your schizo disinfo ranting is probably cointelpro approved.

    • Agree: Sean
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    You didn't even read what I said, you pathetic basement-dwelling troll liar.
  52. Propaganda works.

  53. @songbird
    It's remarkable to me how the story of COVID-19 has been hijacked to promote progressivism in China.

    People are using it strangely to talk about how Africans are mistreated in Guangzhou. (I wonder if the CIA could be promoting this one) Ostensible conservatives are now demanding that Hollywood films not be censored in China, and griping about how the black character of Finn was airbrushed from the Star Wars poster in China, five years ago. It's really odd.

    A lot of expats have turned on China like pitbulls, probably nursing a personal grudge about being denied citizenship there or something.

    They’re desperately probing for weak points since nothing they’ve tried – economic, political, covert – in the past 20+ years has worked so far. So they really have nothing to lose by trying everything.

    20 YEARS. That’s enough time to drive anyone crazy.

  54. @AaronB
    So....

    It is impossible to bring manufacturing back and we shouldn't try...

    China has no aggressive strategies towards the West (as you told A123)...

    And in the past, I heard you say our only hope is to be controlled/ dominated by China...

    If I was as conspiratorial minded as the average Unz commenters, I'd be quite cynical about you by now lol...

    :)

    I believe AE has expressed a similar desire to be dominated by Islam....what is it with you alt righters :)

    It is impossible to bring manufacturing back and we shouldn’t try…

    Of course it’s possible. I just think it would be much harder to do than people here think, would come at a very high price and probably would not solve any of the problems that people here think it will solve. It’s a naïve feelgood idea.

    China has no aggressive strategies towards the West

    Of course China has no aggressive strategies towards the West. The United States on the other hand has aggressive intentions towards China. And Russia. And Iran. And anyone else who doesn’t want to accept US global hegemony.

    I believe AE has expressed a similar desire to be dominated by Islam….what is it with you alt righters

    LOL. I’m no alt-righter.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    You should read John Derbyshires latest piece about the gangster like nature of the CCP.

    I am pleased to see that most Australians are not as spineless as you. I was beginning to think your slavish attitude was typical of Australians.

    You disappoint me, though - I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn't trade in simplistic one-sided "if America is bad China must be good" childishness.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador's gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia's perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.
  55. @Audacious Epigone
    I think that was Septimius Severus' advice. Diocletian's advice on debasing the money is one we've long since internalized.

    If there´s no more fault to find – thanks 😀

  56. @unit472
    My guess is 'global opinion' is going to turn hard against China as the world realizes what the regime of Xi Jinping actually did.

    The example I'd use is: suppose Japan in March 2011 tried to cover up the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. One of spent fuel reactor pools collapsed and caught fire. A radioactive cloud enveloped Tokyo and then drifted over Korea or China. Sorry doesn't cut it at that point yet that is what China basically did.

    They lost control of a deadly virus ( probably from one of their own labs ) tried to cover it up and rather than ask the world for help they lied about it and let it spread... DELIBERATELY! They could have stopped all travel out of Wuhan but they didn't. They allowed international travel to continue.

    The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China. This kind of criminal regime cannot be allowed to stand.

    If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China.

    I feel like I’ve just wandered onto the set of Dr Strangelove. Any minute now someone will start babbling that the Chinese want to steal our precious bodily fluids.

    • Replies: @unit472
    Brilliant comedy from Mr. Kubrick. I have noticed that many commentors on this forum use movies as their exemplars. Not real world examples but movies. I guess they are too ill informed to do otherwise. If it isn't from a movie or tv show its not real in their world view.
  57. @d dan

    "The world must demand Xi Jinping and his ministers heads. If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China."
     
    No, you and your family can volunteer for the war. Please count me and my family out.

    Sorry but it doesn’t work like that. You and your family get included. In your case I hope as combat infantry in the first wave.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "Sorry but it doesn’t work like that. You and your family get included. In your case I hope as combat infantry in the first wave."
     
    LOL. In that case, are you sure I won't happen to have a "vision" problem to shoot at the wrong side? I am smart enough to know who my REAL enemy is. You better hope you don't stand near me.
  58. @dfordoom

    If China does not surrender them then the world must go to war against China.
     
    I feel like I've just wandered onto the set of Dr Strangelove. Any minute now someone will start babbling that the Chinese want to steal our precious bodily fluids.

    Brilliant comedy from Mr. Kubrick. I have noticed that many commentors on this forum use movies as their exemplars. Not real world examples but movies. I guess they are too ill informed to do otherwise. If it isn’t from a movie or tv show its not real in their world view.

  59. @MarkinLA
    The ends justifies the means.

    Always has, always will.


    I know that is meant as sarcasm but when it comes to MY country getting it's economy back where it should be then we have to make a decision. Obviously, telling the truth about offshoring doesn't work with all the paid shills for Wall Street and the oligarchs telling their lies constantly and buying the politicians.

    I know that is meant as sarcasm

    No

    we have to make a decision.

    You don’t believe that the deciders are suddenly going to start making decisions based upon what is good for the country as a whole, do you?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You don’t believe that the deciders are suddenly going to start making decisions based upon what is good for the country as a whole, do you?
     
    Of course they will. They'll suddenly decide to stop being greedy vicious cynical a-holes and devote themselves to public service. And then pigs will start flying. And we'll discover that the Tooth Fairy is real. Lucy won't snatch the football away this time because she promised!

    Right-wingers are touchingly child-like. They think that if they close their eyes really tight and make a wish, it will come true. Magic is real.
  60. @MBlanc46
    We can hope, AE. But even if the common people finally start speaking out against globalization, what will it matter if the corporate and financial elites, and their politician and media water carriers, decide that globalization is still where the power and riches are for them?

    Millions of Americans together have a LOT of power, but they don’t know that. It’s best for the elites that they never know that. I don’t hold out a lot of hope, as Americans seem to be just fine with the Bread & Circuses, for now at least.

  61. @EliteCommInc.
    "Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war."




    No. In fact, it's the safest and healthiest place to be in . . . and while total self sufficiency is not possible, The US should be preparing for a far more hostile international environment. The invasions and their aftermath have revealed some deep weaknesses by way of perception and reality.


    By any "means necessary" is a reference to that has very limited usefulness in most environments. Because as the last twenty years have demonstrated those of you who thought war was the appropriate response to nonactors and non threatening states --

    as means of making a point ---

    devastatingly wrong.

    The US should be preparing for a far more hostile international environment.

    The only country creating a far more hostile international environment is the United States.

    • Replies: @iffen
    BS
  62. @d dan

    "What a lot of people forget when talking about tariffs (both for and against them) is that they are, in fact, a tax. Just like a sales tax but applied exclusively to foreign goods. So in addition to encouraging domestic industry, the government is generating revenue off the tariff."
     
    Unfortunately, no. Trump trade war with China has been going on for over two years, we don't see Americans rushing to make cheap plastic toys nor tennis shoe. Neither is Apple bringing back its iPhone factory nor Microsoft closing its R&D center in China. Even though US trade deficits with China goes down, US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases. Translation: Tran-shipment and out-sourcing of Chinese goods to Vietnam is mitigating those tariffs. Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.

    Tariffs is a trade distorting policy. It is too blunt a tool to help US. The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate .... etc. Using tariffs to solve those problems is like dentist bring a hammer to help you with your toothache due to chronic and pervasive tooth decay.

    US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases… Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.

    You are completely correct, which is yet another reason why the China-bashers are in the wrong. We need tariffs on goods from all countries with substantially lower labor costs, not just China.

    The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate …. etc.

    This is also true, but that fact in no way implies tariffs wouldn’t be effective. The whole point is that they make prodcution in the US artificially more competitive than it would be otherwise. I would say thats a good thing.

    Also, three of the problems you cited (welfare-ism, over-financialization, and “economy”) are themselves worsened by the manufacturing collapse.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "We need tariffs on goods from all countries with substantially lower labor costs, not just China."
     
    I believe tariffs is too blunt a tool to achieve what you want. Some manufacturing is obviously important to US, but not every types of manufacturing is equally important. For example, what is the point of having tariffs on textile or toys, if US never intends to compete in those industries. It would only add cost for the whole population. If the cost of living rises, the exporters become less competitive against other OECD countries. Autarky is not necessary if we do not intend to bully and threaten other countries. It is less efficient than globalization.

    "This is also true, but that fact in no way implies tariffs wouldn’t be effective. The whole point is that they make prodcution in the US artificially more competitive than it would be otherwise."
     
    Unfortunately, tariffs do NOT make production in US more competitive. On the contrary, it is protecting the uncompetitive US companies from foreign competitions. It won't force US companies to be more productive or agile. Take the example of navy shipbuilding. While I understand the need of protection on security ground, the US navy shipbuilding is the epitome of industrial inefficiency and a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

    What US needs, in my opinion, is some type of targeted industrial policy, in addition to the deep soul searching and painful transforms in many areas of the social, educational, economic, financial, military and political institutions of the country. And of course, the arrogant exceptionalism attitude, hegemonic ambition, and the "China-bad, China-steal, China-can't-innovate" racism all need to go too.

    So, be humble, and look at other successful developed countries for lessons, especially the East Asia ones and Germany. Many of them still hold their competitivenss against China in some industries, and manage to maintain trade surplus or overall balance with them.

  63. @dfordoom

    The US should be preparing for a far more hostile international environment.
     
    The only country creating a far more hostile international environment is the United States.

    BS

  64. @iffen
    I know that is meant as sarcasm

    No

    we have to make a decision.

    You don't believe that the deciders are suddenly going to start making decisions based upon what is good for the country as a whole, do you?

    You don’t believe that the deciders are suddenly going to start making decisions based upon what is good for the country as a whole, do you?

    Of course they will. They’ll suddenly decide to stop being greedy vicious cynical a-holes and devote themselves to public service. And then pigs will start flying. And we’ll discover that the Tooth Fairy is real. Lucy won’t snatch the football away this time because she promised!

    Right-wingers are touchingly child-like. They think that if they close their eyes really tight and make a wish, it will come true. Magic is real.

  65. @dfordoom

    Living standards, OTOH, would go up, were the US to become an economically self-sufficient nation again.
     
    I'm not convinced. There are plenty of arguments against globalisation but the economic arguments are rather weak. It's horrible to admit this but I think that overall, in material terms, we may well be better off with globalisation.

    Economic self-sufficiency may just mean a manufacturing sector that will need bailouts on a regular basis. It will be a manufacturing sector with the taxpayer footing the bill (not very libertarian). Achieving economic self-sufficiency will require a degree of economic central planning (very communistic). The consumer and the taxpayer will get screwed while a few billionaires will be making out like bandits. Basically a way of siphoning taxpayers' money into corporate pockets.

    Australia used to be surprisingly self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing. What that meant in practice is that we had a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from. Now Australians have been effectively banned from the global marketplace (thanks to government interference in free trade and free consumer choice) so we're back to having a very limited very crappy range of ludicrously overpriced consumer goods to choose from.

    Even if you look at the US was manufacturing ever efficient? The US auto industry thrived while it had no competition. Once it faced competition American consumers realised that for decades Detroit had been selling them cars that were over-priced unreliable junk.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you're intending to fight a war. Otherwise it's likely to be costly and futile. Plus, it's socialism.

    Economic self-sufficiency really only makes sense if you’re intending to fight a war. Otherwise it’s likely to be costly and futile.

    You may not be intending to fight a war but war is intending to fight you.

    Self sufficiency is costly right up until you need it, at which point it becomes priceless.

  66. @nokangaroos
    Erm, no.

    In the long run Triffin´s Paradox is no more forgiving than the rocket equation or the First Law. The reserve currency (moreso a weaponized one) penalizes domestic production. By forcing everybody and his mama to work for you, you reduce your own workers to rest-, shift-, clue- and useless panem eaters ... the plebs of the States formerly known as United are what Marx (whom I do not usually quote) called "luxury workers" and "counterrevolutionary to the bone".

    - The Great Depression (and a few other things) was the direct result of the Verailles Treaty (and only WWII ended it) - and the current situation is much worse. (Kozlick held the US addiction to war stems from "overproduction of capital" but it goes back to long before saturation so the classic neoMarxist take can´t be it (it has to do with credit going back to at least Cromwell) - Hudson might be onto something but is a bit above my head; though I see only another World War will get them out of this.)

    - A mercenary army is a necessary corollary. (Geez. Whoda thunk the Founders weren´t stupid?)
    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: "Pay the soldiers first - the rest don´t matter. " :P

    "Becoming self-sufficient again" will in the short run mean austerity to make a pig barf - but it´s worth it ;)

    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: “Pay the soldiers first – the rest don´t matter.”

    I actually have a job paying the soldiers. In the end, paying the soldiers wasn’t enough. The Roman emperors needed to make sure the economy was healthy enough that they could collect the taxes to pay the soldiers and they didn’t do that. More recently, the British didn’t do it either. They reached the point where they didn’t have enough money to pay for their huge navy and then the Sun did set on the British empire.

    The U.S. is reaching that point also, especially with the jump in the debt with the recent stimulus package. Compare that with the 1920-21 recession after the Spanish flu when there was no stimulus package at all. The economy quickly recovered then. The 700 billion a year U.S. military budget won’t last much longer. All the Army people I work with seem oblivious to that and think the status quo will continue forever.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    Good point. The US is currently where Little Britain was about 1908 - seemingly invincible but already dead, just too dumb to fall down; given that after two lost world wars they still don´t believe it, the future doesn´t look good.
    But one thing is certain: Blaming China makes as much sense as blaming Japan or Germany before that (to the Brits´credit, they were slightly less hypocritical :P ).
  67. @MarkinLA
    I don't care what it takes to get manufacturing and engineering jobs back into the US. If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

    If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.

    Quite right. What we desperately need is more lies. The trouble with politics these days is that it’s too damned honest. Why would you tell the people the truth? They’re just suckers. Never give a sucker an even break.

    Of course in order for the lies to be believed it will be necessary to silence the truth. But no problem -who needs freedom of speech anyway?

    Just remember, Comrade, the end justifies the means. Lie, cheat, steal. It’s all good!

    I guess I’ll be seeing you at the next Old Bolsheviks Re-Union?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Just remember, Comrade, the end justifies the means.

    “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)
     
  68. The virus started in China but if other countries subsequently deal with the problem incompetently then it is their problem, not China’s. This is just obvious common sense.

    No-one is forced to buy Chinese manufactured goods. If over-reliance on China is, with hindsight, now realised to have been a bad thing then again this is the fault of other nations than China. This again is just obvious common sense.

    Everyone knows that the USA, as well as many major European countries like France and the UK are in long term decline. Everyone can see that life for the Chinese is improving. It is this that is making many Westerners, left and right, anti-China. They hate the fact that they can no longer view themselves as superior.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    No one forced China to buy all of America's treasuries, either. Caveat emptor.
  69. @Sean
    The elderly are not so worried about their investments there failing to mature. https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/the-federal-retirement-fund-is-about-to-invest-in-china-some-former-us-military-leaders-object-1.627524

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/07/20/ret-general-robert-spalding-moon-landing-couldnt-happen-todays-deindustrialized-america-weve-lost-all-china/s
    The $600 per week in addition to their normal unemployment benefit for workers laid off due to COVID-19 is for many more than they were gating working, because the big paying jobs have left since China entered a globalised world labour market.
    “In 2017, the Chinese floated a billion dollar denominated bond in Frankfurt and at the same time announced that they were building an aircraft carrier,” Spalding explained. “And our institutional

    investors — our retirement funds — bought the bonds.
     
    The West is a collection of commercial states, with pensions dependant on continuing Chinese growth. Manufacture of screws and fasteners has ceased in America, and circuit boards for the F35 are made in ... China.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/asia/south-china-sea-us-navy-freedom-of-navigation-intl-hnk/index.html

    As William Lind pointed out

    We are not going to fight a war with China, because China is a nuclear power. Nuclear powers do not fight each other conventionally because the risk of escalation to nuclear war is too great.
     
    So thank God for people in the twilight of their lives who can see China without thinking of all the money it is making for their retirement. They may be elderly and female, but they are not old women in the pejorative sense.

    I agree that that is an outrage, but it’s incorrect to blame the investors themselves—the Thrift Savings Plan isn’t directly managed by its beneficiaries like a colonial New England township.

  70. d dan says:
    @Bragadocious
    Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit. Starting with steel. Ask those brilliant Californians who had their Bay Bridge renovated with China steel. Whoops! A $34 million legal settlement later, California's learned its lesson.

    And have we forgotten about the Chinese drywall disaster of the aughts? I could go on. Bikes, dog food, toothpaste. Kids toys. Chinese auto parts is worthy of 2000 words by itself. Maybe tariffs can be justified on public safety grounds.

    “Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit…”

    Sure, if you like to do that, go ahead. China is not cruising their warships down the Mississippi River to force any American to buy anything from them. They are not pointing a gun at your head, right?

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own. You probably can guess what those consumers, including me and my family will choose.

    But I suspect this is not your intention. What you really want is for the government to use its fascist and coercive powers to force millions against their wills.

    Enough said.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Bragadocious

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own.

     

    Actually, no. The government has a legal responsibility to protect consumers from dangerous products. China markets dangerous products all the time. The running joke now is that Covid19 is the only Chinese export to last more than 3 months.

    Using your logic, maybe we should have allowed Thalidomide to be sold to pregnant women back in the 60s. It's muh free market after all. Pregnant women can make their own informed choices.
    , @Anonymous
    If China were cruising their warships down the Mississippi, do you believe that Americans should still be allowed to decided on their own whether or not to buy Chinese made goods?

    If you answer no, does that not make you a fascist? If you answer yes, does that not make you a naive ideologue?

  71. d dan says:
    @unit472
    Sorry but it doesn't work like that. You and your family get included. In your case I hope as combat infantry in the first wave.

    “Sorry but it doesn’t work like that. You and your family get included. In your case I hope as combat infantry in the first wave.”

    LOL. In that case, are you sure I won’t happen to have a “vision” problem to shoot at the wrong side? I am smart enough to know who my REAL enemy is. You better hope you don’t stand near me.

  72. @d dan

    "Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit..."
     
    Sure, if you like to do that, go ahead. China is not cruising their warships down the Mississippi River to force any American to buy anything from them. They are not pointing a gun at your head, right?

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own. You probably can guess what those consumers, including me and my family will choose.

    But I suspect this is not your intention. What you really want is for the government to use its fascist and coercive powers to force millions against their wills.

    Enough said.

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own.

    Actually, no. The government has a legal responsibility to protect consumers from dangerous products. China markets dangerous products all the time. The running joke now is that Covid19 is the only Chinese export to last more than 3 months.

    Using your logic, maybe we should have allowed Thalidomide to be sold to pregnant women back in the 60s. It’s muh free market after all. Pregnant women can make their own informed choices.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "Actually, no. The government has a legal responsibility to protect consumers from dangerous products."
     
    LOL. Facists always find reasons to "protect" me. You guys are great. I really can't tell whether the Chinese-made tennis shoe is a danger to my feet. I need you and the government to tell me. Thanks for making this clear.

    "Using your logic, maybe we should have allowed Thalidomide to be sold to pregnant women back in the 60s. It’s muh free market after all. Pregnant women can make their own informed choices."
     
    No, by your logic, justification for regulating a technical and obscure product (Thalidomide, who know about it?) should be generalized to apply indiscriminately to a broad range of non-technical and daily products. And that range of products need not share any commonality, except the country of origin.

    So, don't give me the BS that you care about consumer protection. You are just a typical China-hater: obviously ignorant and blatantly hypocrite. Notice how you subtly changed from your original position of "should be boycotted" to the latest position of government's "legal responsibility".
  73. utu says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    The whole bioweapon thesis from both sides of the spectrum is ridiculous.
     
    That's true.

    But the issue is whether the virus was accidentally released from the Wuhan Biolab. The MSM won't touch the story and has been actively deplatforming it. But the circumstantial evidence is that:

    (a) According to its own published research, the Wuhan Biolab (Dr. Shi Zhengli), was experimenting with splicing elements of SARS ("S-proteins") with collected samples of natural bat coronavirus to allow the virus to cross species (Per her 2015 Paper in Nature);

    (b) The Wujan coronavirus gene sequence which was published by a Chinese lab on January 11, 2020, demonstrated it had sequences identical to the documented samples collected by the Chinese for research;

    (c) The bats that host the virus do not exist in Wujan; the "wet market" in Wujan did not sell bats; and contact tracing shows that "patient zero" could not have come from the wet market;

    (d) As soon as these facts came out, the Chinese ordered the samples destroyed and put a gag order on all discussion of the virus or its origin;

    (e) Before the gag order, a high-level Chinese administrator (Xu Bo) and a researcher at the biolab (Chen Qanjiao), revealed that the Chinese themselves suspected the virus had leaked from the biolab.

    (f) A female graduate student who worked at the biolab, Huang Yanling, is suspected of being "patient zero" and having died of the virus. The Chinese deny this and scrubbed her info. But she's missing and there's no proof of life.

    This documentary is by the anti-China Epoch Times and has some over-dramatic bits, but it's still a good summary of the known facts.

    https://youtu.be/Gdd7dtDaYmM?t=107

    Per her 2015 Paper in Nature. – It was not her paper. The chief author was Dr. Ralph Baric of University of North Carolina where the work was done. The paper had 15 co-authors out of which two were Chinese Zhengli-Li Shi and Xing-Yi Ge from Wuhan Institute off Virology. See:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

    In Dr. Ralph Baric’s CV you can find that he cooperated with DARPA giving invited talks on engineering of microorganisms in 2003 and 2005:

    https://media-speakerfile-pre.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/cc4e5e5d442320c20c7f76a0c3cadce51445358867.pdf
    Invited Speaker: Engineering the Genomes of Microorganisms. DARPA Meeting on “Synthetic Biology”, Menlo Park, California. March 2003.

    Synthetic Coronaviruses. Biohacking: Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies, June 2005. Washington, DC. DARPA/MITRE sponsored event. Invited Speaker

    One of his grants, SERCEB U54AI057157-0 is titled “Platforms for the Synthesis and Testing of Emerging Zoonotic Viruses”. SERCEB = Southeast Regional Centers of Excellence for Biodefense

    The publication of the 2015 paper in Nature Medicine raised alarm and criticisms as Baric violated the moratorium on the gains of function research:

    https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/moratorium-on-gain-of-function-research-36564
    In the wake of a handful of biosafety lapses at federal research facilities, the US government is temporarily halting funding for new studies aiming to give novel functions to influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses

    Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)
    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502

    Baric’s defense was that the research began before the moratorium was implemented under Obama in 2014.

    What really is interesting how in January 2020 Ralph Baric responded to the emerging Covid-19 epidemic:

    “US residents should be aware about the #2019nCoV but be more concerned about the flu virus. Get your flu shot if you haven’t already!⁩ ”
    https://twitter.com/david_rmartinez/status/1222502006356684800?s=12

  74. Anonymous[341] • Disclaimer says:
    @d dan

    "Chinese products should be boycotted not just for patriotic reasons but because their products are complete shit..."
     
    Sure, if you like to do that, go ahead. China is not cruising their warships down the Mississippi River to force any American to buy anything from them. They are not pointing a gun at your head, right?

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own. You probably can guess what those consumers, including me and my family will choose.

    But I suspect this is not your intention. What you really want is for the government to use its fascist and coercive powers to force millions against their wills.

    Enough said.

    If China were cruising their warships down the Mississippi, do you believe that Americans should still be allowed to decided on their own whether or not to buy Chinese made goods?

    If you answer no, does that not make you a fascist? If you answer yes, does that not make you a naive ideologue?

  75. The paper had 15 co-authors out of which two were Chinese Zhengli-Li Shi and Xing-Yi Ge from Wuhan Institute off Virology.

    The name on the paper appears to be incorrect. The correct Romanized spelling is SHI Zhengli which matches her Chinese name. The given name Zhengli was probably originally written with a hyphen (Zheng-Li) and then miscorrected into Zhengli-Li.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Your handle fits you well!
  76. @Tusk
    Let's go over your crazy reply:

    1. It’s not a US bioweapon.
     
    It's not a bioweapon, so it doesn't matter if it's fictionally US or Chinese (It's neither) because it's not a bioweapon. It's a disease that originated from the unhealthy habits of the Chinese population who don't have the decency to limit cross-contamination.

    2. It’s just the flu.
     
    Nice strawman, where did I say that again?

    3. China did it.
     
    What did 'China' do? I don't see how China, as a state, has the capacity to do anything. The disease originated in China because of their lifestyle habits. I'm not blaming them as if it is a sinister plot which they concocted (though I will blame them for helping it spread) but they are responsible for birthing it.

    I'm not even American so I don't care what people think about America, China or the Jews. If anything your schizo disinfo ranting is probably cointelpro approved.

    You didn’t even read what I said, you pathetic basement-dwelling troll liar.

  77. @martin_2
    The virus started in China but if other countries subsequently deal with the problem incompetently then it is their problem, not China's. This is just obvious common sense.

    No-one is forced to buy Chinese manufactured goods. If over-reliance on China is, with hindsight, now realised to have been a bad thing then again this is the fault of other nations than China. This again is just obvious common sense.

    Everyone knows that the USA, as well as many major European countries like France and the UK are in long term decline. Everyone can see that life for the Chinese is improving. It is this that is making many Westerners, left and right, anti-China. They hate the fact that they can no longer view themselves as superior.

    No one forced China to buy all of America’s treasuries, either. Caveat emptor.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    ... were there not this little Constitutional guarantee ;)
  78. @Eagle Eye

    The paper had 15 co-authors out of which two were Chinese Zhengli-Li Shi and Xing-Yi Ge from Wuhan Institute off Virology.
     
    The name on the paper appears to be incorrect. The correct Romanized spelling is SHI Zhengli which matches her Chinese name. The given name Zhengli was probably originally written with a hyphen (Zheng-Li) and then miscorrected into Zhengli-Li.

    Your handle fits you well!

  79. d dan says:
    @Bragadocious

    Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people in US and billions in the world should be ALLOWED to decide on their own.

     

    Actually, no. The government has a legal responsibility to protect consumers from dangerous products. China markets dangerous products all the time. The running joke now is that Covid19 is the only Chinese export to last more than 3 months.

    Using your logic, maybe we should have allowed Thalidomide to be sold to pregnant women back in the 60s. It's muh free market after all. Pregnant women can make their own informed choices.

    “Actually, no. The government has a legal responsibility to protect consumers from dangerous products.”

    LOL. Facists always find reasons to “protect” me. You guys are great. I really can’t tell whether the Chinese-made tennis shoe is a danger to my feet. I need you and the government to tell me. Thanks for making this clear.

    “Using your logic, maybe we should have allowed Thalidomide to be sold to pregnant women back in the 60s. It’s muh free market after all. Pregnant women can make their own informed choices.”

    No, by your logic, justification for regulating a technical and obscure product (Thalidomide, who know about it?) should be generalized to apply indiscriminately to a broad range of non-technical and daily products. And that range of products need not share any commonality, except the country of origin.

    So, don’t give me the BS that you care about consumer protection. You are just a typical China-hater: obviously ignorant and blatantly hypocrite. Notice how you subtly changed from your original position of “should be boycotted” to the latest position of government’s “legal responsibility”.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    Judging from your broken English, I'll assume you're a Chinese national, or some hasbara troll paid by them to sow disinformation. Seems like Unz is full of these lowlifes these days.

    Anyway, I don't really hate China, though your assertion that I do calls to mind the same tactic used by Zionists.

    I don't really care if they make tennis shoes. But when they sell timing belts for automobiles and steel for bridges then we have a major, major problem. That you can't see that and instead pull the "you hate China" card says it all. It's AIPAC 101.
  80. d dan says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    US overall trade deficits still remains the same, while its trade deficit with countries like Vietnam soars. Meanwhile, China export to Vietnam increases... Exporters worldwide are agile and capable of finding loopholes to bypass the tariffs.
     
    You are completely correct, which is yet another reason why the China-bashers are in the wrong. We need tariffs on goods from all countries with substantially lower labor costs, not just China.


    The fundamental problem with US is the lack of competitiveness in many areas (a long list): e.g. education, infrastructure, welfare-ism, end-less wars, over-financialization (i.e. Wall Street dominated) economy, political stalemate …. etc.
     
    This is also true, but that fact in no way implies tariffs wouldn't be effective. The whole point is that they make prodcution in the US artificially more competitive than it would be otherwise. I would say thats a good thing.

    Also, three of the problems you cited (welfare-ism, over-financialization, and "economy") are themselves worsened by the manufacturing collapse.

    “We need tariffs on goods from all countries with substantially lower labor costs, not just China.”

    I believe tariffs is too blunt a tool to achieve what you want. Some manufacturing is obviously important to US, but not every types of manufacturing is equally important. For example, what is the point of having tariffs on textile or toys, if US never intends to compete in those industries. It would only add cost for the whole population. If the cost of living rises, the exporters become less competitive against other OECD countries. Autarky is not necessary if we do not intend to bully and threaten other countries. It is less efficient than globalization.

    “This is also true, but that fact in no way implies tariffs wouldn’t be effective. The whole point is that they make prodcution in the US artificially more competitive than it would be otherwise.”

    Unfortunately, tariffs do NOT make production in US more competitive. On the contrary, it is protecting the uncompetitive US companies from foreign competitions. It won’t force US companies to be more productive or agile. Take the example of navy shipbuilding. While I understand the need of protection on security ground, the US navy shipbuilding is the epitome of industrial inefficiency and a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

    What US needs, in my opinion, is some type of targeted industrial policy, in addition to the deep soul searching and painful transforms in many areas of the social, educational, economic, financial, military and political institutions of the country. And of course, the arrogant exceptionalism attitude, hegemonic ambition, and the “China-bad, China-steal, China-can’t-innovate” racism all need to go too.

    So, be humble, and look at other successful developed countries for lessons, especially the East Asia ones and Germany. Many of them still hold their competitivenss against China in some industries, and manage to maintain trade surplus or overall balance with them.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Autarky is not necessary if we do not intend to bully and threaten other countries. It is less efficient than globalization.
     
    Precisely.

    The problem is that a lot of the people who want autarky for the US really do also like the idea of the US bullying and threatening other countries. There's an increasingly unhinged quality to this.
  81. @dfordoom

    If it takes a daily dose of lies to the people to accomplish it, then so be it.
     
    Quite right. What we desperately need is more lies. The trouble with politics these days is that it's too damned honest. Why would you tell the people the truth? They're just suckers. Never give a sucker an even break.

    Of course in order for the lies to be believed it will be necessary to silence the truth. But no problem -who needs freedom of speech anyway?

    Just remember, Comrade, the end justifies the means. Lie, cheat, steal. It's all good!

    I guess I'll be seeing you at the next Old Bolsheviks Re-Union?

    Just remember, Comrade, the end justifies the means.

    “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

  82. @Mark G.

    Don´t forget to heed Diocletian´s deathbed advice to his sons: “Pay the soldiers first – the rest don´t matter."
     
    I actually have a job paying the soldiers. In the end, paying the soldiers wasn't enough. The Roman emperors needed to make sure the economy was healthy enough that they could collect the taxes to pay the soldiers and they didn't do that. More recently, the British didn't do it either. They reached the point where they didn't have enough money to pay for their huge navy and then the Sun did set on the British empire.

    The U.S. is reaching that point also, especially with the jump in the debt with the recent stimulus package. Compare that with the 1920-21 recession after the Spanish flu when there was no stimulus package at all. The economy quickly recovered then. The 700 billion a year U.S. military budget won't last much longer. All the Army people I work with seem oblivious to that and think the status quo will continue forever.

    Good point. The US is currently where Little Britain was about 1908 – seemingly invincible but already dead, just too dumb to fall down; given that after two lost world wars they still don´t believe it, the future doesn´t look good.
    But one thing is certain: Blaming China makes as much sense as blaming Japan or Germany before that (to the Brits´credit, they were slightly less hypocritical 😛 ).

  83. “The only country creating a far more hostile international environment is the United States.”

    I am going to be careful here, because i think the US has created some issues by way of miscalculations on a grand scale, most of which have exposed and damaged the US. However, I also think our presence unlike many is one of an exceptional nation, largely to the world’s benefit in multiple arenas., not without errors, but by and are pluses (save recent events over the last 30 years or so — again some deep self inflicted wounds).

    Now whether that hostility is one of our own making or merely the shifting roles of other players in a more competitive world —

    te fact remains, the US need to prepare for a more hostile environment, that has been in play since the end of the “cold war”. This is not a bid for the US to become an isolationist state. Though many would make those claims. That is not at all what I am saying. However, we had better attend to matters at home post haste. And if someone wants to charge isolationism

    my simple response would be so what, a little isolation would be a sound course of action. I personally believe we are over extended and overexposed.

    —————

    The evidence suggests that the viral infection began in Chin. Whether it was an error in a lab or the result of bat soup, there is little evidence that it was intentionally spread. What is obvious is that it is an issue. And it is being use to cover-up serious fault-lines in US structure in key arenas — instead of corrective action, it appears that we are going to get more of the same and perhaps worse, which means — careless, upper tiered globalization is going to overwhelm national existence at a much faster pace, in my view.

    If in fact WS is the economy (and I don’t believe that) and the virus has taken a global and national toll as claimed — then stock prices y default should show sings of decline, that is how a balanced realistic system would operate — ebb and flow to real circumstances. But if in fact, there is little fluctuation across the board (generally) then something is amiss and that has nothing to do with the virus.

    ——————————

    And it has to be one of the strangest counter intuitive dynamics that there are people who actually give the current executive a pass on his failure on immigration restriction in light of current events. In fact, their position is so disoriented that they want more of damaging policies to quell their hatred for people who have fought and died against Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners, and even Africans all at the same time they claim to be pro-nationalist.

    The current epidemic, pandemic, etc. has clearly demonstrated, a lot of people here are clearly not interested in red, white and blue — but more akin to some manner of bland admixture to soothe their social anxieties over shade and tone as opposed to the any heart about what citizenship really means.

    Its been interesting reading.

    I keep telling my housemate, eventually, things are going to get righted for me and I am on my way — in light of new world to come in the US she needs to take some self defense courses and learn how to use a handgun because glimpses of what’s coming based on the leadership on display — may place her immediate existence in jeopardy. No predictions, but the trends on display even here — suggest that the roots of who are are have shrunk or perhaps were ever only but a few inches deep.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    the fact remains, the US need to prepare for a more hostile environment, that has been in play since the end of the “cold war”.
     
    A good way of doing that would be for the US to stop behaving in a hostile manner. A good start would be to dismantle that useless dangerous malevolent white elephant known as NATO.
  84. @Audacious Epigone
    No one forced China to buy all of America's treasuries, either. Caveat emptor.

    … were there not this little Constitutional guarantee 😉

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The flaccidness of the constitution aside, there are ways to get around that. Render a judgment against China for X, where X happens to be the amount of treasuries held by China. When China refuses to pay, cancel those treasuries in recompense.
  85. @dfordoom

    It is impossible to bring manufacturing back and we shouldn’t try…
     
    Of course it's possible. I just think it would be much harder to do than people here think, would come at a very high price and probably would not solve any of the problems that people here think it will solve. It's a naïve feelgood idea.



    China has no aggressive strategies towards the West
     
    Of course China has no aggressive strategies towards the West. The United States on the other hand has aggressive intentions towards China. And Russia. And Iran. And anyone else who doesn't want to accept US global hegemony.

    I believe AE has expressed a similar desire to be dominated by Islam….what is it with you alt righters
     
    LOL. I'm no alt-righter.

    You should read John Derbyshires latest piece about the gangster like nature of the CCP.

    I am pleased to see that most Australians are not as spineless as you. I was beginning to think your slavish attitude was typical of Australians.

    You disappoint me, though – I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn’t trade in simplistic one-sided “if America is bad China must be good” childishness.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador’s gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia’s perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador’s gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products ..."
     
    Right, ending tourism and stop buying your product is gangster-like - you can't get more twisted than that. I guess China has an eternal "duty" to send its tourists to Australia and buy Australian products. That is true even when the other side is very unfriendly. Furthermore, the Chinese ambassador is NOT even making a threat of any actions by the Chinese government, but rather, simply pointing out the potential reaction and sentiment of the Chinese consumers. Finally, if mere statements like this is considered "gangster-like", what about the ACTUAL sanctions, embargoes, trade wars that are carried out by US and western worlds against so many weaker countries on extremely dubious grounds - do you consider those as "gangster-like" too?

    "...in response to Australia’s perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes."
     
    Pure hypocrite. Firstly, the "request" is not just for China to "provide the world with a full account". The "request" is for an "international investigation". Secondly, the purpose is unlikely to prevent future mistakes - you are incredibly naive if you really think so. The purposes are almost certainly one of the following:

    1. Support economic claim against China for the so-called "reparation" - whether Covid-19 is China's fault or not.
    2. Global smear on China's reputation - whether Covid-19 is China's fault or not.
    3. Cover-up for American fault - if Covid-19 is indeed a leak from American Lab or a bio-attack from US.
    4. Cover-up of incompetency in combating Covid-19 by the so-called democratic governments.
    5. All of the above.

    Thirdly, this is definitely not a "perfectly reasonable request" because the investigation is unlikely to be fair, e.g.
    1. Western dominated media will certainly control the message (e.g. see the other blog in Unz about Facebook just censoring of unz.com)
    2. Even though Covid-19 was FIRST tested in Wuhan, it is still not scientifically conclusive where exactly it began.
    3. It is unlikely that US will allow investigation into its hundreds of bio-labs throughout the world. It is equally unlikely US will provide data/records of CDC and Fort Detrick closure, etc.
    4. US will almost certainly block the investigation into the possibility of bio-attack from US.

    Finally, this request is totally unprecedented. Never has any country requests an international investigation of any epidemic in any time. We know nobody made a noise about the H1N1, AIDS, mad cow disease,.... Given the extremely hostile view US has about China at this time, why is it unreasonable for China to feel suspicious.


    "But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind."
     
    China is NOT acting aggressively by any standards, but rather defensively. Your extreme anti-China bias is amply demonstrated.
    , @songbird

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.
     
    It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that Swedes are a passive people. When was the last time they were at war? 1814! And are they not whipped by their women? And subservient to invaders?

    Ah, but then again, why was there a "numbers station" operating for many years in Swedish? (this is a covert shortwave radio station where a voice reads off seemingly random numbers to operatives) Why was Olof Palme mysteriously killed? Do you realize that Swedes sent more money to African freedom fighters than Americans (including blacks)? And I believe it would be a mistake to think that their covert operations ended with apartheid, or where confined to Africa.

    Swedes are, in fact, a hyper-aggressive people - at least on the level of their government. They should open up their archives, and show their bloody hands. They worked hand in hand with communists in the past, but it was an alliance of the moment. They have moved on. China is not part of globohomo, and this irritates them. The Chinese are building hundreds of coal plants. They are oppressing Uighurs and Tibetans. As the Swedes see it, they are colonizing Africa. They have not embraced Swedish values and need to be destroyed.
    , @dfordoom

    You disappoint me, though – I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn’t trade in simplistic one-sided “if America is bad China must be good” childishness.
     
    Whether China is "good" or not is irrelevant. As superpowers go they are not an aggressive expansionist power.

    Great powers are usually not overly pleasant. Rome was very unpleasant indeed. The French were dangerous and aggressive until the Germans kicked the stuffing out of them. The Germans were very nasty until they got the stuffing kicked out of them. The British in the days when they were a great power were cynical and vicious as well as stupid.

    Looking at the world today it's blindingly obvious that the US is much more aggressive, more expansionist, more imperialistic and more dangerously unhinged than China. China generally behaves rationally. The US behaves irrationally.

    The Chinese will certainly act to protect their own interests, sometimes ruthlessly, but in a manner that is rational and predictable. The US is both irrational and unpredictable. It's objectively obvious that China is not a major threat to the world, while the US is.
    , @dfordoom

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador’s gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia’s perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.
     
    If Australia, which has benefited immensely from its trade relationship wth China, elects to support moves to scapegoat China it seems pretty reasonable that the Chinese would be annoyed.

    And gangster-like? When a guy goes into your store and says he's going to get some of the boys to smash it up because you didn't pay the protection money, that's gangster-like. When a guy goes into your store and tells you that because you're acting in a hostile manner he might decide to take his business elsewhere in future that's called exercising his right to choose with whom to do business.

    And there's nothing reasonable about Australia's request. The intention is to subject China to a show trial.
  86. @d dan

    "Actually, no. The government has a legal responsibility to protect consumers from dangerous products."
     
    LOL. Facists always find reasons to "protect" me. You guys are great. I really can't tell whether the Chinese-made tennis shoe is a danger to my feet. I need you and the government to tell me. Thanks for making this clear.

    "Using your logic, maybe we should have allowed Thalidomide to be sold to pregnant women back in the 60s. It’s muh free market after all. Pregnant women can make their own informed choices."
     
    No, by your logic, justification for regulating a technical and obscure product (Thalidomide, who know about it?) should be generalized to apply indiscriminately to a broad range of non-technical and daily products. And that range of products need not share any commonality, except the country of origin.

    So, don't give me the BS that you care about consumer protection. You are just a typical China-hater: obviously ignorant and blatantly hypocrite. Notice how you subtly changed from your original position of "should be boycotted" to the latest position of government's "legal responsibility".

    Judging from your broken English, I’ll assume you’re a Chinese national, or some hasbara troll paid by them to sow disinformation. Seems like Unz is full of these lowlifes these days.

    Anyway, I don’t really hate China, though your assertion that I do calls to mind the same tactic used by Zionists.

    I don’t really care if they make tennis shoes. But when they sell timing belts for automobiles and steel for bridges then we have a major, major problem. That you can’t see that and instead pull the “you hate China” card says it all. It’s AIPAC 101.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "Judging from your broken English, I’ll assume you’re a Chinese national, or some hasbara troll paid by them to sow disinformation. Seems like Unz is full of these lowlifes these days."
     
    Yes, English is not my first language. But neither am I citizen of China, nor have I ever studied nor stayed in China, except as a tourist or for business. Why does it even matter, and what has it to do with the current debate?

    "Anyway, I don’t really hate China, though your assertion that I do calls to mind the same tactic used by Zionists."
     
    Your hate-China mind set is so clear for any neutral person to see that you can't even notice:

    Yes, some Chinese products are defective - so ban ALL Chinese products. If someone have different experience with Chinese products - the person can't be right, and government has to interfere to "protect" them from Chinese products. If he still insists otherwise, noop, he must be a Chinese paid troll.

    You still want me to believe you don't hate China?

    Just to make this even more clear to you in case your hatred clouded you so much. Suppose someone claims that we should ban ALL American products - because American-made 737 Max crashed - killing 300+ people. American-made medicine like Vioxx (see Ron Unz's article) had killed over 50000+ people,... etc. Would you consider the person to be "anti-America", or "hate-America"? I certainly would. So do most neutral persons.

    You lack of knowledge about China shows, and you are letting your ignorance and prejudice drives your argument.


    "I don’t really care if they make tennis shoes. But when they sell timing belts for automobiles and steel for bridges then we have a major, major problem."
     
    We each can shout at our full throat saying opposite things. But you are the one proposing drastic actions, therefore, you have the great burden of proof.

    So, where is your data supporting Chinese products are mostly defective that it requires BLANKET ban? How many percentage of the over $500 billions import annually, and trillions more from the past years are defective? If their steel is defective, there must be plenty of bridge collapses in China, especially given that they are under-going brisk neck infrastructure projects lately. Also, you must prove to the readers that thousands of importers and millions of American, European, Japanese engineers and QC are sleeping in their jobs. You must convince the readers to believe billions of consumers worldwide are so blind to such "obvious" facts that you can see as "major, major problem".

    For a start, try your arguments with data, figures, facts, rather than anecdote, experience and unwarranted sweeping generalization.


    "That you can’t see that and instead pull the “you hate China” card says it all. It’s AIPAC 101."
     
    You are the one who can't agree to disagree. While I agree that you have the right to boycott Chinese products, you support government action to take away my choice. I respect you opinion about bad-quality Chinese products, but you disagree that I have my point.

    Furthermore, if you are serious about boycotting Chinese products, why don't you FIRST show it to the readers, by shutting down your laptops and throwing away you iPhones. I am 100% sure there are plenty of parts from China in them. Why are you still posting?

  87. @nokangaroos
    ... were there not this little Constitutional guarantee ;)

    The flaccidness of the constitution aside, there are ways to get around that. Render a judgment against China for X, where X happens to be the amount of treasuries held by China. When China refuses to pay, cancel those treasuries in recompense.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "Render a judgment against China for X..."
     
    I don't think you understand "sovereign immunity". Here is an extract from wikipedia for your reference:

    "Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity."
     
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

    Because of sovereign immunity, China can NOT be found guilty and its asset confiscated. If it could, many countries would have file court cases throughout the world with claims against many other countries - including claims against US - for all sorts of reasons.

    However, I am not saying that it is impossible for US to claim "reparation" against China for Covid-19, but it has to be done outside legal and court case. For example, Trump could invoke "national emergency" power to "freeze" China's assets. US has done that many times with other countries' assets, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, etc. Note that a "frozen" asset, in theory, is still considered to belong to China.

    Of course, this whole thing could become very messy when China or even third party start retaliate by freezing US assets in China or elsewhere...

  88. d dan says:
    @AaronB
    You should read John Derbyshires latest piece about the gangster like nature of the CCP.

    I am pleased to see that most Australians are not as spineless as you. I was beginning to think your slavish attitude was typical of Australians.

    You disappoint me, though - I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn't trade in simplistic one-sided "if America is bad China must be good" childishness.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador's gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia's perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.

    “I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador’s gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products …”

    Right, ending tourism and stop buying your product is gangster-like – you can’t get more twisted than that. I guess China has an eternal “duty” to send its tourists to Australia and buy Australian products. That is true even when the other side is very unfriendly. Furthermore, the Chinese ambassador is NOT even making a threat of any actions by the Chinese government, but rather, simply pointing out the potential reaction and sentiment of the Chinese consumers. Finally, if mere statements like this is considered “gangster-like”, what about the ACTUAL sanctions, embargoes, trade wars that are carried out by US and western worlds against so many weaker countries on extremely dubious grounds – do you consider those as “gangster-like” too?

    “…in response to Australia’s perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.”

    Pure hypocrite. Firstly, the “request” is not just for China to “provide the world with a full account”. The “request” is for an “international investigation”. Secondly, the purpose is unlikely to prevent future mistakes – you are incredibly naive if you really think so. The purposes are almost certainly one of the following:

    1. Support economic claim against China for the so-called “reparation” – whether Covid-19 is China’s fault or not.
    2. Global smear on China’s reputation – whether Covid-19 is China’s fault or not.
    3. Cover-up for American fault – if Covid-19 is indeed a leak from American Lab or a bio-attack from US.
    4. Cover-up of incompetency in combating Covid-19 by the so-called democratic governments.
    5. All of the above.

    Thirdly, this is definitely not a “perfectly reasonable request” because the investigation is unlikely to be fair, e.g.
    1. Western dominated media will certainly control the message (e.g. see the other blog in Unz about Facebook just censoring of unz.com)
    2. Even though Covid-19 was FIRST tested in Wuhan, it is still not scientifically conclusive where exactly it began.
    3. It is unlikely that US will allow investigation into its hundreds of bio-labs throughout the world. It is equally unlikely US will provide data/records of CDC and Fort Detrick closure, etc.
    4. US will almost certainly block the investigation into the possibility of bio-attack from US.

    Finally, this request is totally unprecedented. Never has any country requests an international investigation of any epidemic in any time. We know nobody made a noise about the H1N1, AIDS, mad cow disease,…. Given the extremely hostile view US has about China at this time, why is it unreasonable for China to feel suspicious.

    “But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.”

    China is NOT acting aggressively by any standards, but rather defensively. Your extreme anti-China bias is amply demonstrated.

  89. d dan says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    The flaccidness of the constitution aside, there are ways to get around that. Render a judgment against China for X, where X happens to be the amount of treasuries held by China. When China refuses to pay, cancel those treasuries in recompense.

    “Render a judgment against China for X…”

    I don’t think you understand “sovereign immunity”. Here is an extract from wikipedia for your reference:

    “Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.”

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

    Because of sovereign immunity, China can NOT be found guilty and its asset confiscated. If it could, many countries would have file court cases throughout the world with claims against many other countries – including claims against US – for all sorts of reasons.

    However, I am not saying that it is impossible for US to claim “reparation” against China for Covid-19, but it has to be done outside legal and court case. For example, Trump could invoke “national emergency” power to “freeze” China’s assets. US has done that many times with other countries’ assets, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, etc. Note that a “frozen” asset, in theory, is still considered to belong to China.

    Of course, this whole thing could become very messy when China or even third party start retaliate by freezing US assets in China or elsewhere…

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  90. ‘The flaccidness of the constitution aside, there are ways to get around that. Render a judgment against China for X, where X happens to be the amount of treasuries held by China. When China refuses to pay, cancel those treasuries in recompense.”

    The idea of opening an international civil case for wrongs against the US in light recent events — seems short sighted. Because that is a two way street. Unless the US can held herself blameless, there’s a long list countries that would the US to open those flood gates.

    The issues between China and Sweden —

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/swedish-media-calls-for-action-against-attacks-from-chinese-officials

    high context cultures so pesky

  91. @AaronB
    You should read John Derbyshires latest piece about the gangster like nature of the CCP.

    I am pleased to see that most Australians are not as spineless as you. I was beginning to think your slavish attitude was typical of Australians.

    You disappoint me, though - I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn't trade in simplistic one-sided "if America is bad China must be good" childishness.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador's gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia's perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.

    It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that Swedes are a passive people. When was the last time they were at war? 1814! And are they not whipped by their women? And subservient to invaders?

    Ah, but then again, why was there a “numbers station” operating for many years in Swedish? (this is a covert shortwave radio station where a voice reads off seemingly random numbers to operatives) Why was Olof Palme mysteriously killed? Do you realize that Swedes sent more money to African freedom fighters than Americans (including blacks)? And I believe it would be a mistake to think that their covert operations ended with apartheid, or where confined to Africa.

    Swedes are, in fact, a hyper-aggressive people – at least on the level of their government. They should open up their archives, and show their bloody hands. They worked hand in hand with communists in the past, but it was an alliance of the moment. They have moved on. China is not part of globohomo, and this irritates them. The Chinese are building hundreds of coal plants. They are oppressing Uighurs and Tibetans. As the Swedes see it, they are colonizing Africa. They have not embraced Swedish values and need to be destroyed.

  92. @d dan

    "We need tariffs on goods from all countries with substantially lower labor costs, not just China."
     
    I believe tariffs is too blunt a tool to achieve what you want. Some manufacturing is obviously important to US, but not every types of manufacturing is equally important. For example, what is the point of having tariffs on textile or toys, if US never intends to compete in those industries. It would only add cost for the whole population. If the cost of living rises, the exporters become less competitive against other OECD countries. Autarky is not necessary if we do not intend to bully and threaten other countries. It is less efficient than globalization.

    "This is also true, but that fact in no way implies tariffs wouldn’t be effective. The whole point is that they make prodcution in the US artificially more competitive than it would be otherwise."
     
    Unfortunately, tariffs do NOT make production in US more competitive. On the contrary, it is protecting the uncompetitive US companies from foreign competitions. It won't force US companies to be more productive or agile. Take the example of navy shipbuilding. While I understand the need of protection on security ground, the US navy shipbuilding is the epitome of industrial inefficiency and a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

    What US needs, in my opinion, is some type of targeted industrial policy, in addition to the deep soul searching and painful transforms in many areas of the social, educational, economic, financial, military and political institutions of the country. And of course, the arrogant exceptionalism attitude, hegemonic ambition, and the "China-bad, China-steal, China-can't-innovate" racism all need to go too.

    So, be humble, and look at other successful developed countries for lessons, especially the East Asia ones and Germany. Many of them still hold their competitivenss against China in some industries, and manage to maintain trade surplus or overall balance with them.

    Autarky is not necessary if we do not intend to bully and threaten other countries. It is less efficient than globalization.

    Precisely.

    The problem is that a lot of the people who want autarky for the US really do also like the idea of the US bullying and threatening other countries. There’s an increasingly unhinged quality to this.

  93. @EliteCommInc.
    "The only country creating a far more hostile international environment is the United States."

    I am going to be careful here, because i think the US has created some issues by way of miscalculations on a grand scale, most of which have exposed and damaged the US. However, I also think our presence unlike many is one of an exceptional nation, largely to the world's benefit in multiple arenas., not without errors, but by and are pluses (save recent events over the last 30 years or so -- again some deep self inflicted wounds).

    Now whether that hostility is one of our own making or merely the shifting roles of other players in a more competitive world ---

    te fact remains, the US need to prepare for a more hostile environment, that has been in play since the end of the "cold war". This is not a bid for the US to become an isolationist state. Though many would make those claims. That is not at all what I am saying. However, we had better attend to matters at home post haste. And if someone wants to charge isolationism


    my simple response would be so what, a little isolation would be a sound course of action. I personally believe we are over extended and overexposed.

    ---------------

    The evidence suggests that the viral infection began in Chin. Whether it was an error in a lab or the result of bat soup, there is little evidence that it was intentionally spread. What is obvious is that it is an issue. And it is being use to cover-up serious fault-lines in US structure in key arenas -- instead of corrective action, it appears that we are going to get more of the same and perhaps worse, which means --- careless, upper tiered globalization is going to overwhelm national existence at a much faster pace, in my view.

    If in fact WS is the economy (and I don't believe that) and the virus has taken a global and national toll as claimed -- then stock prices y default should show sings of decline, that is how a balanced realistic system would operate --- ebb and flow to real circumstances. But if in fact, there is little fluctuation across the board (generally) then something is amiss and that has nothing to do with the virus.

    ------------------------------

    And it has to be one of the strangest counter intuitive dynamics that there are people who actually give the current executive a pass on his failure on immigration restriction in light of current events. In fact, their position is so disoriented that they want more of damaging policies to quell their hatred for people who have fought and died against Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners, and even Africans all at the same time they claim to be pro-nationalist.

    The current epidemic, pandemic, etc. has clearly demonstrated, a lot of people here are clearly not interested in red, white and blue -- but more akin to some manner of bland admixture to soothe their social anxieties over shade and tone as opposed to the any heart about what citizenship really means.

    Its been interesting reading.

    I keep telling my housemate, eventually, things are going to get righted for me and I am on my way --- in light of new world to come in the US she needs to take some self defense courses and learn how to use a handgun because glimpses of what's coming based on the leadership on display -- may place her immediate existence in jeopardy. No predictions, but the trends on display even here -- suggest that the roots of who are are have shrunk or perhaps were ever only but a few inches deep.

    the fact remains, the US need to prepare for a more hostile environment, that has been in play since the end of the “cold war”.

    A good way of doing that would be for the US to stop behaving in a hostile manner. A good start would be to dismantle that useless dangerous malevolent white elephant known as NATO.

  94. @AaronB
    You should read John Derbyshires latest piece about the gangster like nature of the CCP.

    I am pleased to see that most Australians are not as spineless as you. I was beginning to think your slavish attitude was typical of Australians.

    You disappoint me, though - I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn't trade in simplistic one-sided "if America is bad China must be good" childishness.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador's gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia's perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.

    You disappoint me, though – I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn’t trade in simplistic one-sided “if America is bad China must be good” childishness.

    Whether China is “good” or not is irrelevant. As superpowers go they are not an aggressive expansionist power.

    Great powers are usually not overly pleasant. Rome was very unpleasant indeed. The French were dangerous and aggressive until the Germans kicked the stuffing out of them. The Germans were very nasty until they got the stuffing kicked out of them. The British in the days when they were a great power were cynical and vicious as well as stupid.

    Looking at the world today it’s blindingly obvious that the US is much more aggressive, more expansionist, more imperialistic and more dangerously unhinged than China. China generally behaves rationally. The US behaves irrationally.

    The Chinese will certainly act to protect their own interests, sometimes ruthlessly, but in a manner that is rational and predictable. The US is both irrational and unpredictable. It’s objectively obvious that China is not a major threat to the world, while the US is.

    • Agree: d dan, nokangaroos
  95. d dan says:
    @Bragadocious
    Judging from your broken English, I'll assume you're a Chinese national, or some hasbara troll paid by them to sow disinformation. Seems like Unz is full of these lowlifes these days.

    Anyway, I don't really hate China, though your assertion that I do calls to mind the same tactic used by Zionists.

    I don't really care if they make tennis shoes. But when they sell timing belts for automobiles and steel for bridges then we have a major, major problem. That you can't see that and instead pull the "you hate China" card says it all. It's AIPAC 101.

    “Judging from your broken English, I’ll assume you’re a Chinese national, or some hasbara troll paid by them to sow disinformation. Seems like Unz is full of these lowlifes these days.”

    Yes, English is not my first language. But neither am I citizen of China, nor have I ever studied nor stayed in China, except as a tourist or for business. Why does it even matter, and what has it to do with the current debate?

    “Anyway, I don’t really hate China, though your assertion that I do calls to mind the same tactic used by Zionists.”

    Your hate-China mind set is so clear for any neutral person to see that you can’t even notice:

    Yes, some Chinese products are defective – so ban ALL Chinese products. If someone have different experience with Chinese products – the person can’t be right, and government has to interfere to “protect” them from Chinese products. If he still insists otherwise, noop, he must be a Chinese paid troll.

    You still want me to believe you don’t hate China?

    Just to make this even more clear to you in case your hatred clouded you so much. Suppose someone claims that we should ban ALL American products – because American-made 737 Max crashed – killing 300+ people. American-made medicine like Vioxx (see Ron Unz’s article) had killed over 50000+ people,… etc. Would you consider the person to be “anti-America”, or “hate-America”? I certainly would. So do most neutral persons.

    You lack of knowledge about China shows, and you are letting your ignorance and prejudice drives your argument.

    “I don’t really care if they make tennis shoes. But when they sell timing belts for automobiles and steel for bridges then we have a major, major problem.”

    We each can shout at our full throat saying opposite things. But you are the one proposing drastic actions, therefore, you have the great burden of proof.

    So, where is your data supporting Chinese products are mostly defective that it requires BLANKET ban? How many percentage of the over $500 billions import annually, and trillions more from the past years are defective? If their steel is defective, there must be plenty of bridge collapses in China, especially given that they are under-going brisk neck infrastructure projects lately. Also, you must prove to the readers that thousands of importers and millions of American, European, Japanese engineers and QC are sleeping in their jobs. You must convince the readers to believe billions of consumers worldwide are so blind to such “obvious” facts that you can see as “major, major problem”.

    For a start, try your arguments with data, figures, facts, rather than anecdote, experience and unwarranted sweeping generalization.

    “That you can’t see that and instead pull the “you hate China” card says it all. It’s AIPAC 101.”

    You are the one who can’t agree to disagree. While I agree that you have the right to boycott Chinese products, you support government action to take away my choice. I respect you opinion about bad-quality Chinese products, but you disagree that I have my point.

    Furthermore, if you are serious about boycotting Chinese products, why don’t you FIRST show it to the readers, by shutting down your laptops and throwing away you iPhones. I am 100% sure there are plenty of parts from China in them. Why are you still posting?

  96. @AaronB
    You should read John Derbyshires latest piece about the gangster like nature of the CCP.

    I am pleased to see that most Australians are not as spineless as you. I was beginning to think your slavish attitude was typical of Australians.

    You disappoint me, though - I thought you were a much more nuanced thinker and didn't trade in simplistic one-sided "if America is bad China must be good" childishness.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador's gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia's perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    But I guess China does not act aggressively, so probably Australia is at fault in your mind.

    Sweden also, it seems, is leading the backlash against, China, which is interesting. Who would have thought.

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador’s gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia’s perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.

    If Australia, which has benefited immensely from its trade relationship wth China, elects to support moves to scapegoat China it seems pretty reasonable that the Chinese would be annoyed.

    And gangster-like? When a guy goes into your store and says he’s going to get some of the boys to smash it up because you didn’t pay the protection money, that’s gangster-like. When a guy goes into your store and tells you that because you’re acting in a hostile manner he might decide to take his business elsewhere in future that’s called exercising his right to choose with whom to do business.

    And there’s nothing reasonable about Australia’s request. The intention is to subject China to a show trial.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    If Australia, which has benefited immensely from its trade relationship wth China
     
    Having housing shortages which price ordinary Australians out of living space, due to money from Chinese predatory export practices flowing back into residential markets, isn't something that benefits people below the 1%.

    elects to support moves to scapegoat China
     
    China was already contact-tracing while its Ethiopian puppet who's current head of WHO was saying there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission.  China had internal lockdowns but left Wuhan International open.  China has a lot to answer for.
  97. @dfordoom

    I am curious what your response is to the Chinese ambassador’s gangster-like threat to end tourism and stop buying Australian products in response to Australia’s perfectly reasonable request that China provide the world with a full account of how it dealt with the virus, for the purpose of preventing future mistakes.
     
    If Australia, which has benefited immensely from its trade relationship wth China, elects to support moves to scapegoat China it seems pretty reasonable that the Chinese would be annoyed.

    And gangster-like? When a guy goes into your store and says he's going to get some of the boys to smash it up because you didn't pay the protection money, that's gangster-like. When a guy goes into your store and tells you that because you're acting in a hostile manner he might decide to take his business elsewhere in future that's called exercising his right to choose with whom to do business.

    And there's nothing reasonable about Australia's request. The intention is to subject China to a show trial.

    If Australia, which has benefited immensely from its trade relationship wth China

    Having housing shortages which price ordinary Australians out of living space, due to money from Chinese predatory export practices flowing back into residential markets, isn’t something that benefits people below the 1%.

    elects to support moves to scapegoat China

    China was already contact-tracing while its Ethiopian puppet who’s current head of WHO was saying there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission.  China had internal lockdowns but left Wuhan International open.  China has a lot to answer for.

    • Agree: Tusk
  98. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:

    OMG!

    You re telling us that 3 straight years of daily Jeff Zucker CNN propaganda that THE RUSSIANS stole the election from Hillary and 25 straight years of lying Max Boot Zionist David Frum Neo Conservative anti Russian lies (parroted by cuckservatives like Mitt Romney) haven t completely brainwashed American minds?

    Just some minor Communist Chinese Kung flu and 44 million US unemployed is making people switch to the “Yellow Communist peril “

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS