pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 5 replies \ @xz 4 Nov \ parent \ on: Why sanctions on Russia are literally backfiring Politics_And_Law
To your last point, for sure, 's hard to to argue a counterbalance wouldn't be helpful.
I think the other point you made is largely correct. Maybe an inconvenirnt truth that in today's world, nations/economic and political regions are very much allies through convenience and what that brings.
The part about Trump. Well, I think there's a lot of flowery language around about how he seems. I'm not sure I can buy that. Practicality and realism are the only ways to go, when there's a trust issue with international 'rules'. Every player skirts these rules economically.
I feel agrements like the TTP are adverserial. Equally, even if built out of a practical solution to the current balance of power, the SCO is also. To act in the way that nations that are less aligned on the spectrum of power must, India or Vietnam, for example, benefits them, by carefully navigating the orbit, as someone above decribed it.
When the gloves come off, allies are allies of convenience for the most part.
All of these state-to-state agreements are only to the deterrent of the individuals wanting to trade.
Why not let individuals and individual companies trade as they wish without interference.
Then there would be no need for treaty talks or agreements between states.
There would be no adversarial relationships, at all, only cooperation and fruly free trade.
Could the CCP do that?
reply
Americas power and wealth is in large part derived from the rules based international institutional order and protocols that America itself dominates- IMF-World Bank-SWIFT-petrodollar.
That international order is the framework that 'allies' have accepted and worked within.
However that framework is showing signs of breaking down- and Trump is seen as accelerating that process and increasing US isolation.
For example my nation of origin - New Zealand was the first OECD five eyes nation to enter into an FTA with China in the early 2000s- that led to an explosion in trade between NZ and China- both nations have what the other wants and China perhaps saw NZ as an easy place to start understanding the western alliances internal systems - there is now substantial Chinese influence and investment in NZ.
USA which NZ has been subservient to monetarily and militarily since 1945 has never had a FTA with the US and trade with the US is not growing and is much less than we now have with China.
China has won the trade war- it produces the manufactured goods all nations want and need at the best price and pays the best price for commodities.
US dominance now relies upon legacy dominance of protocols and institutions.
China is building its alternative institutions and protocols (Chinas already operational CBDC EYuan almost certain to be the base protocol for the BRICS Pay) and now demonstrating it can provide near complete alternative to US/West for nations like Russia and Iran and all other non traditional allies of the west.
Trumps approach of imposing tariffs might work in the short term but the near universal control it once enjoyed is slipping away and the trend is toward China taking the lead.
It is hard to see how he could reverse the structural loss of competitive advantage in productivity that has already occurred. Maybe Elon Musks DOGE can at least try?
reply
I'm pretty sure you are right about who is winning the trade war, and that it's mostly bluster in terms of pre-election rants.
From my own perspective, having endured life in both a once-upon -a-time democracy, and spending a chunk of it in a non -democracy where you are not even offered a vote or the right to criticism, I feel I can see where this all goes.
Basically, as you say, 'western' reliance is a legacy hegemony with the linch-pin being SWIFT and that's not going to have much effect going forward. But, I suppose that's where a change in leadership might be able to come to terms with the world's manufacturing base undercutting every other nation, try to mitigate through self-reliance by re-examining supplychain vulnerability, some of that really should be achievable, much of it depends on energy security, where we are now.
I agree tarrifs from one economy alone is not going to do much but it's probably an effective message to send in an economic war, if emulated (expanded further). If other nations wanted to regain some competitive part of global trade, say India, it would be beneficial not just to the US.
Would you rather sit back and aquiesce to policy that benefits a political class. A future with less sovereignty for the individual and communities. Homogenization of a nations ideas, slavery for the masses, riches for the few.
Elon Musk is irrelevant but also harmless.. we don't need Brits running over to Kamala and her corrupt lackies, asking to shut him down.
reply
Whatever the WEF wants, the WEF gets, eh?
If you want these jokers ruling the world, you will see 13/14ths of the population DEAD.
THEY are looking to cull the population of “useless eaters”, in other words, you and me. Such a grand dream for the overlords.
If you want such a charnelhouse world, you will be surprised at the results for you and your family.
Arguing with a motherWEFer is a waste of time, just as with any other criminal or crazy.
reply
Perhaps China will have troubles when investors pull out of China for other climes.
India, VietNam and a host of other countries may be future destinations for investments. China still has problems with ownership and private property.
reply