#Reshoring

[siliconpalms]

CME Group to Launch 1-Ounce Gold Futures & Trump Promises Expedited Approvals for $1 Billion Investors

In the world of finance and policy, two major announcements could have profound implications for global investors and the offshore investment landscape. CME Group to Launch 1-Ounce Gold Futures Contract CME Group, the world’s leading derivatives marketplace, has revealed plans to launch a 1-ounce gold futures contract on January 13, 2025, pending regulatory review. This new offering aims to…

[chainreactionpodcast]

Global Trade and Retail Trends: Insights from Recent Events

Business News Edition: The Winds of Change in Global Trade and Retail The latest episode of our podcast takes listeners on a journey through the complex and evolving landscape of global supply chains. We delve into how the retail industry’s growing emphasis on health and sustainability is transforming supply chain dynamics. As consumer preferences shift towards organic, natural, and minimally…

[finishlinepds]

Design Changes For Reshoring Manufacturing

Giving the product's designs to a new US contract manufacturer (CM) is not the only step in reshoring a product. Here is a List of possible design issues to consider.

For more information, read our blog: Design Changes For Reshoring Manufacturing

[quixoticanarchy]

[id: an image of a container ship at sea with superimposed text reading "Genuinely curious what's going to happen when a society that buys everything from Amazon, Walmart, and Temu realizes what a 60% tariff on Chinese goods looks like." attribution is @/EmmaScott /end id]

[hendrik12ehlers]

Sustainable Reshoring: Supply Chain Security

Embark on a journey towards sustainable manufacturing with the Reshoring Initiative. Explore how reshoring enhances supply chain security, ensuring a resilient and eco-friendly approach. Join the movement for greener, more secure production processes.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The unexpected upside of global monopoly capitalism

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me TODAY (Apr 10) at UCLA, then Chicago (Apr 17), Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

Here's a silver lining to global monopoly capitalism: it means we're all fighting the same enemy, who is using the same tactics everywhere. The same coordination tools that allow corporations to extend their tendrils to every corner of the Earth allows regulators and labor organizers to coordinate their resistance.

That's a lesson Mercedes is learning. In 2023, Germany's Supply Chain Act went into effect, which bans large corporations with a German presence from using child labor, violating health and safety standards, and (critically) interfering with union organizers:

https://www.bafa.de/EN/Supply_Chain_Act/Overview/overview_node.html

Across the ocean, in the USA, Mercedes has a preference for building its cars in the American South, the so-called "right to work" states where US labor law is routinely flouted and unions are thin on the ground. As The American Prospect's Harold Meyerson writes, the only non-union Mercedes factories in the world are in the US:

https://prospect.org/labor/2024-04-08-american-workers-german-law-uaw-unions/

But American workers – especially southern workers – are on an organizing tear, unionizing their workplaces at a rate not seen in generations. Their unprecedented success is down to their commitment, solidarity and shrewd tactics – all buoyed by a refreshingly pro-worker NLRB, who have workers' backs in ways also not seen since the Carter administration:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/14/prop-22-never-again/#norms-code-laws-markets

Workers at Mercedes' factory in Vance, Alabama are trying to join the UAW, and Mercedes is playing dirty, using the tried-and-true union-busting tactics that have held workplace democracy at bay for decades. The UAW has lodged a complaint with the NLRB, naturally:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/alabama-mercedes-benz

But the UAW has also filed a complaint with BAFA, the German regulator in charge of the Supply Chain Act, seeking penalties against Mercedes-Benz Group AG:

https://uaw.org/uaw-files-charges-in-germany-against-mercedes-benz-companys-anti-union-campaign-against-u-s-autoworkers-violates-new-german-law-on-global-supply-chain-practices/

That's a huge deal, because the German Supply Chain Act goes hard. If Mercedes is convicted of union-busting in Alabama, its German parent-company faces a fine of 2% of its global total revenue, and will no longer be eligible to sell products to the German government. Chomp.

Now, the German Supply Chain Act is new, and this is the first petition filed by a non-German union with BAFA, so it's not a slam dunk. But supermajorities of Mercedes workers at the Alabama factory have signed UAW cards, and the election is going to happen in May or June. And the UAW – under new leadership, thanks to a revolution that overthrew the corrupt old guard – has its sights set on all the auto-makers in the American south.

As Meyerson writes, the south is America's onshore offshore, a regulatory haven where corporations pay minimal or no tax and are free to abuse their workers, pollute, and corrupt local governments with a free hand (no wonder American industry is flocking to these states). Meyerson: "The economic impact of unionizing the South, in other words, could almost be placed in the same category as reshoring work that had gone to China."

The German Supply Chain Act was passed with the help of Germany's powerful labor unions, in an act of solidarity with workers employed by German companies all over the world. This is that unexpected benefit to globalism: the fact that Mercedes has extrusions into both the American and German political spheres means that both American and German workers can collaborate to bring it to heel.

The same is true for antitrust regulators. The multinational corporations that are in regulators' crosshairs in the US, the EU, the UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea and beyond use the same playbook in every country. That's doubly true of Big Tech companies, who literally run the same code – embodying the same illegal practices – on servers in every country.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority has led the pack on convening summits where antitrust enforcers from all over the world gather to compare notes and collaborate on enforcement strategies:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cma-data-technology-and-analytics-conference-2022-registration-308678625077

And the CMA's Digital Markets Unit – which boasts the the largest tech staff of any competition regulator in the world – produces detailed market studies that turn out to be roadmaps for other territories' enforces to follow – like this mobile market study:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f61bc0d3bf7f62e8c34a02/Mobile_Ecosystems_Final_Report_amended_2.pdf

Which was extensively referenced in the EU during the planning of the Digital Markets Act, and in the US Congress for similar legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710

It also helped enforcers in Japan:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-to-crack-down-on-Apple-and-Google-app-store-monopolies

And South Korea:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/skorea-considers-505-mln-fine-against-google-apple-over-app-market-practices-2023-10-06/

Just as Mercedes workers in Germany and the USA share a common enemy, allowing for coordinated action that takes advantage of vulnerable flanks wherever they are found, anti-monopoly enforcers are sharing notes, evidence, and tactics to strike at multinationals that are bigger than most countries – but not when those countries combine.

This is an unexpected upside to global monopolies: when we all share a common enemy, we've got endless opportunities for coordinated offenses and devastating pincer maneuvers.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/10/an-injury-to-one/#is-an-injury-to-all

[argumate]

@raginrayguns some graphs on US production of solar and batteries here

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Chinese merchants have flooded online marketplaces to sell US presidential election merchandise — despite both sides in a campaign marked by hostility towards China seeking to promote locally-made products.

More than 90 per cent of the best-selling Donald Trump and Kamala Harris flags and hats on Amazon provide a seller’s address in China, according to a Financial Times analysis. Both candidates state on their official websites that they only sell US-made products. [...]

“This is egregious,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations. “Consumers are clicking a button thinking they are purchasing something that’s benefiting workers in Ohio, Wisconsin, New York, wherever, but they don’t realise that the photos and claims of made-in-the-USA that your search turned up appear to be false and this is being manufactured offshore at a subsidised rate and many times in conditions that would not be allowable under US law.”

Some Chinese manufacturers were unconvinced that their labelling was to blame. Zhang, the flag maker in Yiwu, said Chinese factories had built strength in cost and quality control that may take years for US manufacturers to catch up with.

if she doesnt want to lose the heartland harris must pledge to reshore the maga tchotchke industry

[cognitivejustice]

What the bill proposes

The first focus of the proposed legislation is reshoring manufacturing supply chains that are currently in China. To do this, the bill suggests imposing increased tariffs on goods imported to the U.S. while simultaneously providing tax incentives to manufacturers that move their supply chains to the U.S. 

The second is the proposed 15 percent tax reduction for any U.S.-based business involved with the collection, reuse, repair, recycling, renting or processing of textiles. The $14 billion breaks down into four pools:

$10 billion will be made available for preferential loans for textile reuse and recycling;

$3 billion in grants for textile reuse and recycle, manufacturing support programs and components, and machinery to aid with product transportation and processing;

$1 billion in innovation program research and development related to textile use and recycling; and

$100 million for a public education program.

Rachel Kibbe, CEO of Circular Services Group and American Circular Textiles Group, has been working with Cassidy and Bennet on the bill and lauded its potential.

“With the bold textile reuse and recycling incentive provisions in the Americas Act, organizations in our industry will be able to reinvest in jobs in the U.S. and compete globally,” said Kibbe in a recent interview, “[while] fostering an environment to cultivate private capital.”

[mariacallous]

t it, quoting an ancient adage Xi himself once cited, “The wise adapt to the times, and the astute respond to circumstance.”

Beijing’s high-stakes strategy for navigating a second Trump administration involves, in the words of national security heavyweight Donald Rumsfeld, both the known and the unknown in different quantities. Up top is the most familiar—the “known knowns,” and chief among these is tariffs.

Unlike in 2016, Beijing now faces Trump’s return with a sharper sense of what to expect, thanks to his prior policies. Chief among anticipated challenges are Trump’s intensified “reshoring” agenda and potential tariffs—such as 10-20% on all imports and an additional 60-100% on Chinese imports. These would pose direct threats to China’s export-driven economy at a time when the country is still struggling with a slow recovery, real-estate instability, and weakened consumer demand.

Chinese experts foresee a hardline cabinet in a second Trump term, with figures like trade hawk Robert Lighthizer indicating a more protectionist, confrontational approach. Unlike Trump’s first administration, where voices like Steve Mnuchin occasionally tempered his policies, a unified hawkish team would likely leave little room for moderation. Yet Beijing has been preparing—even if not always successfully—its “dual circulation” strategy aims to boost domestic consumption and curb export reliance, but results have stalled: Domestic demand lags, and export levels remain steady. This strategic pivot is evident in a surge of Chinese investment in Southeast Asia, as Beijing seeks to diversify its supply chains and shield its economy from trade shocks.

To reinforce its position, Beijing has ramped up countermeasures against U.S. companies, shifting from firing warning shots to dealing concrete blows. Skydio, the largest U.S. drone manufacturer, faces critical supply chain disruptions after China sanctioned it over sales to Taiwan’s National Fire Agency, forcing the company to ration batteries. PVH Corp., the parent company of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, now risks placement on China’s “unreliable entity list” for allegedly boycotting Xinjiang cotton, jeopardizing growth in a key market. Intel is also under scrutiny as the Cybersecurity Association of China pushes for an investigation into alleged security flaws, threatening Intel’s hold in a market that accounts for nearly a quarter of its revenue. These sanctions and probes reveal a bolder stance, showing that Beijing’s arsenal for retaliation is far stronger than it was during Trump’s first term.

Chinese experts also see potential blowback for the U.S. economy. A 60% tariff could push U.S. inflation upward, potentially forcing the Federal Reserve toward further rate hikes. Within Chinese policy circles, some view this inflationary risk as a possible check on Trump’s ambitions, noting that rising borrowing costs and asset volatility could dampen his support base for aggressive tariffs.

Beyond tariffs, Beijing is keenly aware of the limitations faced by alternative manufacturing hubs in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Regional bottlenecks—such as labor shortages, infrastructure challenges, and resource constraints—may prevent these regions from fully absorbing production shifts away from China. Ironically, these limitations could exacerbate U.S. inflation if Trump’s tariffs disrupt established supply chains without viable alternatives.

Trump’s anti-globalization stance is familiar, but the ideological shifts it ignites fall into what strategists call “unknown knowns”—factors that are understood but whose full impact remain uncertain. For Beijing, Trump’s isolationist rhetoric resonates with a rising tide of populism across Europe and parts of Asia, such as Italy, Hungary, and the Philippines, creating ideological undercurrents that both challenge and complicate China’s global aspirations.

Some nationalist voices in China view Trump’s “America First” approach as an opportunity. The logic is simple: If the United States pulls back from global frameworks or retreats from alliances like NATO, other nations may look to China as an alternative. But Beijing’s seasoned policy experts approach this notion with sober realism. While China recognizes the potential for Western alliances to fragment, it also understands that a wholesale “pivot” toward Beijing is unlikely.

European leaders may be frustrated with Trump’s isolationism, but they remain wary of China’s growing influence—especially given Beijing’s reluctance to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This perceived tacit support for Russia has deepened European skepticism, fueling doubts about whether China’s expanding reach aligns with Europe’s strategic interests.

Beijing’s advisors are also attuned to the fact that the same populist forces driving Trump’s comeback are gaining ground in Europe. Economic strains have spurred protectionism. This sentiment has tangible economic implications: Calls for tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and other trade protections, particularly in high-value sectors, reflect Europe’s intensifying desire to shield its own industries.

For Beijing, the ideological dimensions of a second Trump term present new complications. While the United States retreating from its traditional global role could create openings, Europe is unlikely to align more closely with China. China’s strategy is to avoid positioning itself as a direct alternative to Trump’s America. Instead, Beijing is casting itself as a pragmatic, stable partner amid the uncertainties triggered by Trump’s disruptions.

Xi’s administration has underscored this practical stance to emerging economies across Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and parts of Europe, promoting investment incentives, visa-free entry, and a revitalized Belt and Road Initiative focused on green and future-industry infrastructure. Beijing’s aim is to strengthen its reputation as a dependable economic partner for countries seeking growth and stability, without appearing to exploit the ideological rifts Trump’s isolationism has exposed across the West.

Xi is accelerating China’s push for self-reliance, especially in technology—a strategy captured in a phrase popular among Chinese advisors: “以不变应万变” (“respond to ever-changing circumstances with a steady core”). The drive toward self-sufficiency isn’t new; “Made in China 2025” set the stage. But recent directives from the Third Plenum and Xi’s call to foster “new productive quality forces”—a frequently repeated Xi-ism—have pushed this ambition further, centering on breakthroughs in next-generation technologies—artificial intelligence, robotics, and semiconductors. This vision aims not only to reduce dependency on Western technology but to assert China’s dominance in frontier industries, with an eye to leading the fourth industrial revolution. For Xi, this is more than economic strategy; it is the fundamental answer to China’s domestic pressures and the ultimate trump card in its rivalry with the United States.

This quest for self-sufficiency also extends to forging stronger economic ties with the global south. Xi’s aim goes beyond building alternative trade networks to Western influence; he envisions a sanction-proof supply chain and financial network—a new global market immune to Western pressures that can fuel China’s ambitions independently.

Then there’s the “known unknowns”—the predictably unpredictable, something very much at the forefront with Trump. A defining feature of Trump’s political style is his highly transactional approach, adding a layer of unpredictability to what might otherwise be straightforward policies. Beijing has observed this pragmatism up close, recognizing that Trump’s business instincts often outweigh ideological commitments, occasionally opening doors for negotiation.

When the United States imposed sanctions on Chinese telecom giant ZTE, for example, Xi personally spoke with Trump, leading to a reversal of the sanctions. For Beijing, this underscored that Trump’s flexibility could be influenced by high-profile gestures that he perceives as personal acknowledgments—a dynamic Beijing sees as potentially useful.

Beijing also understands Trump’s showbiz background and his strong emphasis on image and ego. In 2017, Xi hosted Trump and his family with an unprecedented reception at the Forbidden City, a site traditionally reserved for China’s emperors, infusing the event with a level of grandeur rarely extended to foreign leaders. This carefully curated spectacle played to Trump’s appreciation for high-profile events and deepened his positive impression of Xi. This “personalized diplomacy” showcased Beijing’s understanding of Trump’s sensibilities and laid a foundation for a cooperative rapport between the two leaders.

With this in mind, Chinese advisors are prepared to pursue similar transactional openings in a second Trump term. Behind the scenes, Beijing is nurturing ties with influential American business figures who could serve as informal intermediaries to Trump’s inner circle. Elon Musk, for instance—whose Tesla operations are deeply tied to China’s market—may emerge as a potential bridge between U.S. business interests and Chinese policymakers.

Some advisors are also advocating for figures like former ambassador Cui Tiankai, who has previously established a rapport with Trump’s family, particularly his son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump. Cui’s connections could offer Beijing a valuable “track 1.5” channel for backdoor diplomacy, adding an extra layer of access and influence.

Still, Beijing is cautious about relying too heavily on Trump’s transactional tendencies. Recent remarks suggesting Taiwan should pay more for U.S. protection have sparked mixed reactions in China. Some view it as an opening to ease U.S. support for Taiwan, while others see it as a mere bargaining chip Trump could discard at any time. For Beijing, these mixed signals create a delicate balancing act: While it may aim to leverage Trump’s pragmatism, it knows any perceived concession could be revoked at a moment’s notice. In navigating Trump’s dealmaking style, China proceeds with cautious optimism, fully aware of his unpredictability.

Beyond Trump’s familiar transactional style, Beijing is on high alert for wild cards that could upend its plans. The nature of unknown unknowns is the impossibility to know what you’re missing, but there are some drastic, but not predictable, changes that could shake up U.S.-China relations. A sudden shift in U.S.-Russia relations, for example, could have major implications for Beijing. A closer alliance between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin might strain China’s relationship with Moscow, potentially isolating Beijing within the global power structure. Likewise, unexpected maneuvers by Trump in the Indo-Pacific could unsettle China’s carefully managed ties with regional powers like Japan, South Korea, and India.

A critical constraint on China’s ambitions lies in Washington’s tightening grip on technology exports, an escalating tactic that has introduced more unknowns into Beijing’s strategic calculus. While the general U.S. intent is clear—limiting China’s access to advanced technologies—the extent to which Washington will go remains uncertain. Recent export controls target crucial fields like semiconductors and AI, threatening to curb China’s technological progress at a pivotal time.

Chinese analysts interpret these moves not just as competitive hurdles but as a calculated strategy to stall China’s ascent in strategic areas, particularly AI and quantum computing, which are critical to both economic growth and military strength. As Beijing watches for new layers of restriction, the scale and impact of U.S. actions remain fluid, injecting a destabilizing uncertainty into China’s tech trajectory. To brace for these unknowns, Xi’s broader vision is to shape an economy resilient enough to withstand unpredictable global shifts—whether driven by Trump 2.0 or other forces—without risking economic upheaval or, worse, destabilizing Chinse Communist Party (CCP) control. Trump’s return may add urgency, but Beijing views him as more a symptom of a chaotic world order than its cause, which only reinforces Xi’s long-held belief in fortifying China’s self-reliance. For Xi, bolstering resilience across technology, supply chains, and education is about safeguarding China from external shocks and cementing the stability essential to the CCP’S rule.

In truth, Xi’s groundwork for managing “Trump-style” disruptions began long before Trump’s first term. China’s approach has always hinged on minimizing vulnerabilities to external pressures, a direction deeply embedded in Xi’s worldview. Yet this pursuit of resilience walks a fine line. Strengthening defenses could deepen China’s isolation—a shield that may paradoxically create new weaknesses. Gains in domestic supply chains and tech independence mark real progress, but much of Xi’s vision remains aspirational. Beijing is racing to secure these defenses, understanding that, in a world increasingly defined by upheaval, China’s strength will be measured less by its rapid growth and more by its capacity to endure through turbulence.

[daryldixonfanfiction]

a (Daryl Dixon) short story - pt.2

Masterlist

Paring: Daryl Dixon × fem!reader

Summary: on the run from a swarm of walkers they take shelter in un aboundant car.

Warnings: scary situetion, fluff, angst

*rewrritten

WC: 2.4k

Sharp branches scratched against their skin as they exited the forest. They now stood upon a road, littered with an abandoned car and a corpse that had fallen from the driver seat, dried leaves and branches covered the asphalt, making it look forgotten.

Daryl's firm grip loosened as he released her wrist, leaving a loss of warmth there. He moved swiftly around the car, scanning the tree line for the imposing herd closing in on them.

Then suddenly, a twig snapped in the distance, accompanied with distinctive sounds of the walking dead. She tried to revive the car, rotating the key, but it was to no vail. They flinched when suddenly the bushes behind them began to russell, their eyes met in knowing.

They could not escape such a big hurd and they could certainly not outrun them. So with no choice then taking shelter in the trunk of the car, Daryl beacons her towards him, “Comone,” he urges out of breath, swinging the trunk door open for her to enter. Daryl shut the trunk with haste and mutely motioned for her to stay silent, then secured it with his red bandana so it would stay closed.

The tight space forced their bodies to be close, so close their legs were touching, sitting opposite of one another. She could see the focus there, to make sure the dead wouldn’t break in with his crossbow aimed at the entrance where moonlight shines inside.

It had just gone by a few seconds sins they stumbled upon the road and then got into the back of the car, and just as they had settled in the small space the herd began crossing the road. Fear bloomed in her chest, but then a low, almost a warning realization hit her. Knowing she had been naive to blindly follow this stranger inside a car that she was now trapped in. She knew nothing about him but she could tell he was capable of things she wasn't - and things she didn't dare name. But at the same time she had been left with no other choice. Because if it wasn't for him, she would be dead.

The dead growls loudly, thumping against the car as they cross the road, making it shake and creek with every impact. Their terrifying sounds grow as more pass through and maybe the herd was in the hundreds or even more? She didn't know, but the thought was frightening. Thunder boomed, bright flashes of light flicker on the man's face through the small crack and she thought she saw blue.

His eyes were blue.

Hours went by as wave after wave of the dead passed. Lightning struck so close she feared it would hit the car or make her deaf when her ears ringed. But then eventually the storm calmed and so did the hurd.

Feet shuffled against the asphalt, and now and then one would stumble into the car making it creek at the impact. Morning light slips through, brightening up the space. They were silent, not making a sound, keeping them hidden from the dead roaming outside. The last stranglers of the herd dragged their decaying libs along the road to wherever their next meal would be. And it began to feel like the horror from the night never had happened, as if it all had been a simple nightmare, but when the next thud came she knew the nightmare wasn't over, and that she still felt so scared thinking of what would happen if the door didn't hold. It would be game over.

She turns her gaze from the little view the door crack offers of the outside - to the man before her. He meets her gaze, feeling her worry, reshoring her with a nod and motions with his hand facing her, ‘it's gonna be ok, we're ok’. She nods heavenly in return, and the thoughts of him being something to fear was gone in an instant - replaced with trust she hoped was not misplaced.

She keeps her gaze there, lingering with nothing else to occupy her time as he keeps on guarding the entrance. The man's face was pleasing to the eyes. His eyes were dark blue and hooded, making them look black when the light did not reach. His face held a stoic expression, worn with lines and bags under his eyes. As if he didn't sleep well and had certainly seen much more cruelty then she had. His chestnut hair was dark, falling over his eyes ever so slightly, ending at his neck, sticking to his skin as sweat had dampened it. The tip of his ear poked through and he had a straight button nose and a mole above the corner of his mouth. Facial stubble framed his jaw dashingly with a few strands of silver - indicating he must be in his late 30s, or perhaps early 40s?

Maybe she should be more on her guard around someone she didn't know, but something made her feel that she could trust him, that she was safe. And she had been so deprived of that, that she couldn't help it. And he had made no induction for her to fear him and never had she felt that he would harm her. Shad had been afraid but not in that sense. More so of her poor choice of not thinking and being naive. But nothing bad had happened to make her think otherwise. She reasoned that if he didn't try anything he was not one of them bad people out there. And he was protecting her. And she had not asked this of him, he chose to do so himself. And for whatever that reason was, she was alive, and that was all that mattered.

More hours passed and nature hummed, filling their silence they had been smothered in sins the last of the herd had passed true. There were no stragglers left and she was certain the herd was far away by now - making her wonder why they were still in this cramped up oven? Every breath felt suffocating and it was so disgustingly hot that their clothes were completely drenched like an extra layer of skin.

Sliding a hand over her temple, drained and exhausted, she removes the sweat before it can run down her face. God it was hot. Gazing upon the man once more she couldn't help but to take notice how his veins protrude under his skin, along his thick fingers down to his forearm as he held the weapon firmly, never looking away.

Shifting her weight a bit she then reaches forward and opens up the trunk door. Fresh air filled their lungs and the midday sun made them squint until their eyes adjusted to the outside and the world around them felt so empty as if they were the last people on earth.

And ho new? Maybe they were?

-

Daryl slung the black plastic bag over his shoulder, filled with what he had scavenged from the car, and his crossbow in his opposite. They stood before one another. Their eyes meet awkwardly, with the lack of confidence and uncertainty of the words to be spoken. Daryl was a man of few words, so he chose to say nothing even though there was a curiosity about the girl and why she was alone when he had found her.

He stared for a beat, then began walking down the road for her to follow.

She looked down to the pavement, relieved to not be left behind. While her eyes became glossy with relief, she thanked him in thought and followed.

–

The road feels like it keeps on forever. At some point the pavement beneath her sore feet had become dirt in the forest. She hadn't noticed, perhaps because she was too exhausted now? She was used to taking brakes but he didn't seem like he would stop anytime soon. Every step was a challenge and for hours on end they had been walking through the thick forest. Tall trees took the beating sun of their skin, but not the het that slowly drained them.

She began to feel dizzy and her legs heavy as she stared at his back. His biker jacket reminded her of an angel. And if she remembered right, wings were only worn by someone that had survived a bike crash. He was a survivor before and he still is now, and she wanted to know if it was true or if he had just found it because he liked it?

She really began to feel sick now, feeling how she started to pale. Her steps became heavier and her pace slower. The man's wide strides were exhausting to keep up with as her shorter legs struggled to follow.

Daryl felt her gaze behind him. As if to speak but no words left her lips. He knew she was tired, so was he as he had barely been eating since the prison fell. He could feel her pace slowing down. When the sound of her feet stopped, Daryl immediately stod to a halt, attentive and turned to face her.

“Hold up”, she begs, out of breath.

Daryl looks down at her smaller form. She was on the ground with palms flat against the forest flor, holding her weight with her head hanging.

He carefully approached the exhausted girl before him, feeling both perplexed and curious - how this young girl could have made it so far in a world such as this? He couldn't get his head around it. It would make sense if she belonged to a group at some point. He wanted to know. But he chose against it, like he often did. Maybe when they're safe enough and got some food he would ask?

Daryl watched how her shoulders moved in sync with panting breaths. And she looked to be the same age as Beth, but probably a bit older.

“We can’t stay here”, Daryl said, voice deep and rough, though meaning to say it more gently, he failed tremendously.

It was just not safe for either of them out here. The thought of getting caught up by another herd was still fresh on his mind.

His voice took her by surprise. It was the first time the man really spoken past one word sentence. Whatever she expected the man to sound like, she didn't expect it to sound so low and ruff. In a way it was captivating, and maybe she had been lonely for too long to the point a man's voice sounded like the best thing she had heard in days.

“I can't..." Her voice breaking as if on the verge of tears. Daryl could tell she was scared, afraid he would leave her and he knew she wouldn't survive on her own.

She waited for that moment, but It never came. Looking up expecting nothing then abandonment. But to her surprise, there he was. Standing before her as if leaving had never crossed his mind.

Daryl's mind was already made. He stretches out his hand, reassuring; he's not leaving her. Big bambi eyes look upon his hand then his eyes, hesitating for a moment before she takes her soft on into his calloused and her skin was so soft, so delicate.

Warmth radiated from his hand as it made hers look childlike. Only now did she really nothist how much bigger the man was compared to her. He had a wider frame with narrow hips making his shoulders look broad, he was about a head taller, his arms strong with lean muscle with veins traveling in his opposite hand holding the crossbow. Maybe she should feel some type of fear but she didn't. There was something there, kindness, no malicious intent behind his gaze. She was gonna be okay with him, he will keep her safe. And she could feel it as he carefully pulled her back on her feet, as if he was afraid she would collapse to the ground again.

How such a man could possess such a gentle touch was oddly fascinating. He looked like he had never been taught to know how to be soft- like he would rather use force than words.

“Thank you”, she said gratefully.

And he looked at her before nodding, “Comon '', he ordered but there was a gentleness added to his tone now and a noticeable difference in his pace for her to follow.

Being gentle like that has never come naturally. Growing up, he would be put down by his brother if he ever showed that side. Kindness was weakness, his old man often told him growing up. But there was something with this girl that made his old, ingrained ways shift within.

Daryl wanted to be gentle, to think before he acted. Because he was afraid he would somehow hold her small hand just a little too tightly, as if it would break like porcelain. In Daryl's eyes she looked like a frightened deer, a fawn pleading to be saved.

Why he felt that way, he couldn't fully comprehend. The gentleness he showed didn't seem so rong as his old man had told him. It didn't make him feel weak. The gesture felt right and the girl seemed pleased with this act of kindness.

He seemed kind even though he looked like someone to fear. It intrigued her, made her queries off all the layers beneath his rugged and intimidating exterior. And she wanted to hold onto that moment just a bit longer. The moment when their hands touched and their eyes met as space and time stood still - and she worried her eyes had been blushing. She sure hoped not, that he couldn't tell how flustered he made her.

They now walked closer. She was no longer walking behind him as she was now comfortable beeing at the man's side.

Glancing up at him, making sure she did not invade his space, she relaxed as he didn't seem bothered by her doing so. She dared getting even closer, with still some room left between them. Maybe the few words they spoke, just an hour ago, had something to do with it?

After some passing moments she finally got the courage to ask what had been on her mind, for some time now. As her curiosity grew, she couldn't help the question from rolling off her tongue.

A deep breath - then.

“So…Do you have a name”?

A good moment passed and she worried her question had upset him.

Then.

“Daryl”, he answered simply, and she wouldn't have heard it if she didn't walk beside him.

A satisfied smile played on her lips, dimples showing as evidence of her little accomplishment. Tilting her head at him as they walked side by side, she continued, picking up that his quietness came from shyness.

“I’m….y/n

Masterlist

[dandelionh3art]

If the United States were to stop importing goods from BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), it would have significant economic, geopolitical, and domestic consequences. Here are some key implications:

Economic Impact

Higher Prices for Consumers – The U.S. relies heavily on imports from BRICS nations, especially China and India, for electronics, textiles, pharmaceuticals, and manufactured goods. Cutting off these imports would lead to supply shortages and price increases.

Supply Chain Disruptions – Many American industries depend on raw materials and components from BRICS nations. For example:

China supplies rare earth minerals essential for electronics.

India is a major source of generic pharmaceuticals.

Brazil provides agricultural products like soybeans and beef.

Inflation and Economic Slowdown – Reduced imports could drive inflation higher as businesses struggle to replace affordable BRICS products, impacting U.S. economic growth.

Geopolitical Consequences

Strengthening BRICS' Influence – BRICS nations are already working toward reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar and increasing trade among themselves. A U.S. import ban could push them closer together and accelerate de-dollarization efforts.

Loss of Leverage in Global Trade – The U.S. benefits from economic interdependence, which gives it leverage in trade negotiations. Cutting off BRICS imports could weaken its influence.

Trade Wars and Retaliation – BRICS countries may retaliate by restricting exports to the U.S., which could affect key American industries. China, for instance, could limit its exports of rare earth metals, crippling the U.S. tech sector.

Domestic Challenges

Job Losses in Import-Dependent Sectors – Many U.S. businesses, especially retailers and manufacturers, rely on BRICS imports. Companies that can't afford to shift to alternative suppliers may downsize or shut down.

Need for Domestic Production Growth – While reducing dependency on BRICS could push for more domestic production, it would take years to develop infrastructure, workforce, and supply chains to replace imports.

Possible Long-Term Benefits

Stronger Domestic Manufacturing – If the U.S. successfully shifts production back home or sources from allied nations, it could reduce reliance on geopolitical rivals.

Reduced Economic Influence of China – Since China is the largest BRICS economy, cutting imports could slow its economic rise, though it would also harm U.S. businesses that rely on Chinese trade.

Conclusion

While reducing reliance on BRICS might align with some U.S. strategic goals, an outright ban on imports would likely cause economic pain, inflation, and geopolitical instability. A more balanced approach—diversifying trade partners and reshoring critical industries—would likely be a more sustainable path.

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

What will it take to save the United States?

nurture her, then unleash her. like our founding fathers did. we have neglected her.

not sure how specific/deep you want me to get but i'll give you some ideas: we need to reshore manufacturing (specifically high-tech manufacturing. china can keep making plastic children's toys and shit (actually we should near-shore that shit to latin america) but robotics, batteries, automobiles, drones, shipbuilding, etc, need to be built in america). do this with a combination of tariffs and subsidies.

we need civil service reform. i love bureaucracy. i love the civil service. but it's become bloated and stagnant and too unruly. it needs to be reformed, purged, and revitalized.

secure the border and reform immigration to close asylum loopholes.

tax reform. reduce or abolish income tax. add vat and lvt. basic income or negative income tax or something along those lines.

streamline regulation. i love the state. and i love state intervention. but again, regulations have become unwieldy and outdated. keep the necessary shit, get rid of the bloat.

establish my dream agency -- OPUS. cultivate and preserve american culture and way of life. foster a new american renaissance. a new great awakening. a new wave of national identity and patriotism and unification. sounds nebulous but i believe there are concrete steps to this end.

reform education. again, not sure how in depth you want to get. but i think it's overdue.

i could keep going but i gotta start dinner.

[blamebrampton]

If you’re a USAmerican and any of your friends or family members are talking about voting for Trump for economic reasons, you need to be talking to them.

Trump’s ‘economic’ plans are wildly inflationary and will push up the deficit. You can see the modelling here from Penn Wharton: https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump-campaign-policy-proposals-2024. If your person says that is just modelling, Trump blew the budget at unprecedented levels BEFORE the pandemic in his first term (see https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump).

23 Nobel-winning economists have released a joint letter endorsing Harris and pointing out the economic inequality that will follow a second Trump presidency (https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/23-nobel-laureates-can-t-be-wrong-about-trump-20241101-p5kn5u) and how it will damage the American economy for generations to come. His tariffs will drive up prices (that, and reduce consumer choice, is what tariffs do), they will not restore American manufacturing. His presidency did NOT make any strides towards that (https://www.epi.org/publication/reshoring-manufacturing-jobs/), even before the pandemic he was a notable failure at one of his central policies. Biden-Harris policies, on the other hand have actually created manufacturing jobs and helped lift the economy.

Americans may not feel their lives are better off now, but you can thank Trump for that. His presidency was an unprecedented term of shifting wealth and power to billionaires and a huge component of recent inflation has been corporate profit taking by companies. (https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/ ) The policies outlined for his second term will only make this worse.

There are so many reasons not to vote for Trump: his policies kill women; after nine years of policing a health policy ‘in four weeks’, it’s still just ‘concepts of a plan’; he was a terrible president for immigration, not lowering figures (the sole drop during his term was when the pandemic broke out and people stopped moving) but torturing children; he failed on every significant issue that he campaigned on aside from making life better for billionaires and he failed to meet the central challenge of his presidency with anything approaching competence with Americans being 40% more likely to die of Covid than people in other wealthy nations thanks to his ineptitude (and graft: let us never forget the contracts that went to mates, many of which were left unfulfilled, while testing equipment went to his mate Putin.) AND HE INCITED A COUP AND TRIED TO KILL HIS VICE PRESIDENT which in any rational country would see him in jail.

But it’s just a fantasy to pretend he is good for the economy and people need to stop living in denial.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What comes after neoliberalism?

In his American Prospect editorial, “What Comes After Neoliberalism?”, Robert Kuttner declares “we’ve just about won the battle of ideas. Reality has been a helpful ally…Neoliberalism has been a splendid success for the top 1 percent, and an abject failure for everyone else”:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-03-28-what-comes-after-neoliberalism/

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/28/imagine-a-horse/#perfectly-spherical-cows-of-uniform-density-on-a-frictionless-plane

Kuttner’s op-ed is a report on the Hewlett Foundation’s recent “New Common Sense” event, where Kuttner was relieved to learn that the idea that “the economy would thrive if government just got out of the way has been demolished by the events of the past three decades.”

We can call this neoliberalism, but another word for it is economism: the belief that politics are a messy, irrational business that should be sidelined in favor of a technocratic management by a certain kind of economist — the kind of economist who uses mathematical models to demonstrate the best way to do anything:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

These are the economists whose process Ely Devons famously described thus: “If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’”

Those economists — or, if you prefer, economismists — are still around, of course, pronouncing that the “new common sense” is nonsense, and they have the models to prove it. For example, if you’re cheering on the idea of “reshoring” key industries like semiconductors and solar panels, these economismists want you to know that you’ve been sadly misled:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/24/economy-trade-united-states-china-industry-manufacturing-supply-chains-biden/

Indeed, you’re “doomed to fail”:

https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/high-taxpayer-cost-saving-us-jobs-through-made-america

Why? Because onshoring is “inefficient.” Other countries, you see, have cheaper labor, weaker environmental controls, lower taxes, and the other necessities of “innovation,” and so onshored goods will be more expensive and thus worse.

Parts of this position are indeed inarguable. If you define “efficiency” as “lower prices,” then it doesn’t make sense to produce anything in America, or, indeed, any country where there are taxes, environmental regulations or labor protections. Greater efficiencies are to be had in places where children can be maimed in heavy machinery and the water and land poisoned for a millions years.

In economism, this line of reasoning is a cardinal sin — the sin of caring about distributional outcomes. According to economism, the most important factor isn’t how much of the pie you’re getting, but how big the pie is.

That’s the kind of reasoning that allows economismists to declare the entertainment industry of the past 40 years to be a success. We increased the individual property rights of creators by expanding copyright law so it lasts longer, covers more works, has higher statutory damages and requires less evidence to get a payout:

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

At the same time, we weakened antitrust law and stripped away limits on abusive contractual clauses, which let (for example) three companies acquire 70% of all the sound recording copyrights in existence, whose duration is effectively infinite (the market for sound recordings older than 90 is immeasurably small).

This allowed the Big Three labels to force Spotify to take them on as co-owners, whereupon they demanded lower royalties for the artists in their catalog, to reduce Spotify’s costs and make it more valuable, which meant more billions when it IPOed:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

Monopoly also means that all those expanded copyrights we gave to creators are immediately bargained away as a condition of passing through Big Content’s chokepoints — giving artists the right to control sampling is just a slightly delayed way of giving labels the right to control sampling, and charge artists for the samples they use:

https://doctorow.medium.com/united-we-stand-61e16ec707e2

(In the same way that giving creators the right to decide who can train a “Generative AI” with their work will simply transfer that right to the oligopolists who have the means, motive and opportunity to stop paying artists by training models on their output:)

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

After 40 years of deregulation, union busting, and consolidation, the entertainment industry as a whole is larger and more profitable than ever — and the share of those profits accruing to creative workers is smaller, both in real terms and proportionally, and it’s continuing to fall.

Economismists think that you’re stupid if you care about this, though. If you’re keeping score on “free markets” based on who gets how much money, or how much inequality they produce, you’re committing the sin of caring about “distributional effects.”

Smart economismists care about the size of the pie, not who gets which slice. Unsurprisingly, the greatest advocates for economism are the people to whom this philosophy allocates the biggest slices. It’s easy not to care about distributional effects when your slice of the pie is growing.

Economism is a philosophy grounded in “efficiency” — and in the philosophical sleight-of-hand that pretends that there is an objective metric called “efficiency” that everyone can agree with. If you disagree with economismists about their definition of “efficiency” then you’re doing “politics” and can be safely ignored.

The “efficiency” of economism is defined by very simple metrics, like whether prices are going down. If Walmart can force wage-cuts on its suppliers to bring you cheaper food, that’s “efficient.” It works well.

But it fails very, very badly. The high cost of low prices includes the political dislocation of downwardly mobile farmers and ag workers, which is a classic precursor to fascist uprisings. More prosaically, if your wages fall faster than prices, then you are experiencing a net price increase.

The failure modes of this efficiency are endless, and we keep smashing into them in ghastly and brutal ways, which goes a long way to explaining the “new commons sense” Kuttner mentions (“Reality has been a helpful ally.”) For example, offshoring high-tech manufacturing to distant lands works well, but fails in the face of covid lockdowns:

https://locusmag.com/2020/07/cory-doctorow-full-employment/

Allowing all the world’s shipping to be gathered into the hands of three cartels is “efficient” right up to the point where they self-regulate their way into “efficient” ships that get stuck in the Suez canal:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/29/efficient-markets-hypothesis/#too-big-to-sail

It’s easy to improve efficiency if you don’t care about how a system fails. I can improve the fuel-efficiency of every airplane in the sky right now: just have them drop their landing gear. It’ll work brilliantly, but you don’t want to be around when it starts to fail, brother.

The most glaring failure of “efficiency” is the climate emergency, where the relative ease of extracting and burning hydrocarbons was pursued irrespective of the incredible costs this imposes on the world and our species. For years, economism’s position was that we shouldn’t worry about the fact that we were all trapped in a bus barreling full speed for a cliff, because technology would inevitably figure out how to build wings for the bus before we reached the cliff’s edge:

https://locusmag.com/2022/07/cory-doctorow-the-swerve/

Today, many economismists will grudgingly admit that putting wings on the bus isn’t quite a solved problem, but they still firmly reject the idea of directly regulating the bus, because a swerve might cause it to roll and someone (in the first class seats) might break a leg.

Instead, they insist that the problem is that markets “mispriced” carbon. But as Kuttner points out: “It wasn’t just impersonal markets that priced carbon wrong. It was politically powerful executives who further enriched themselves by blocking a green transition decades ago when climate risks and self-reinforcing negative externalities were already well known.”

If you do economics without doing politics, you’re just imagining a perfectly spherical cow on a frictionless plane — it’s a cute way to model things, but it’s got limited real-world applicability. Yes, politics are squishy and hard to model, but that doesn’t mean you can just incinerate them and do math on the dubious quantitative residue:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

As Kuttner writes, the problem of ignoring “distributional” questions in the fossil fuel market is how “financial executives who further enriched themselves by creating toxic securities [used] political allies in both parties to block salutary regulation.”

Deep down, economismists know that “neoliberalism is not about impersonal market forces. It’s about power.” That’s why they’re so invested in the idea that — as Margaret Thatcher endlessly repeated — “there is no alternative”:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/08/tina-v-tapas/#its-pronounced-tape-ass

Inevitabilism is a cheap rhetorical trick. “There is no alternative” is a demand disguised as a truth. It really means “Stop trying to think of an alternative.”

But the human race is blessed with a boundless imagination, one that can escape the prison of economism and its insistence that we only care about how things work and ignore how they fail. Today, the world is turning towards electrification, a project of unimaginable ambition and scale that, nevertheless, we are actively imagining.

As Robin Sloan put it, “Skeptics of solar feasi­bility pantomime a kind of technical realism, but I think the really technical people are like, oh, we’re going to rip out and replace the plumbing of human life on this planet? Right, I remember that from last time. Let’s gooo!”

https://www.robinsloan.com/newsletters/room-for-everybody/

Sloan is citing Deb Chachra, “Every place in the world has sun, wind, waves, flowing water, and warmth or coolness below ground, in some combination. Renewable energy sources are a step up, not a step down; instead of scarce, expensive, and polluting, they have the potential to be abundant, cheap, and globally distributed”:

https://tinyletter.com/metafoundry/letters/metafoundry-75-resilience-abundance-decentralization

The new common sense is, at core, a profound liberation of the imagination. It rejects the dogma that says that building public goods is a mystic art lost along with the secrets of the pyramids. We built national parks, Medicare, Medicaid, the public education system, public libraries — bold and ambitious national infrastructure programs.

We did that through democratically accountable, muscular states that weren’t afraid to act. These states understood that the more national capacity the state produced, the more things it could do, by directing that national capacity in times of great urgency. Self-sufficiency isn’t a mere fearful retreat from the world stage — it’s an insurance policy for an uncertain future.

Kuttner closes his editorial by asking what we call whatever we do next. “Post-neoliberalism” is pretty thin gruel. Personally, I like “pluralism” (but I’m biased).

Have you ever wanted to say thank you for these posts? Here's how you can do that: I'm kickstarting the audiobook for my next novel, a post-cyberpunk anti-finance finance thriller about Silicon Valley scams called Red Team Blues. Amazon's Audible refuses to carry my audiobooks because they're DRM free, but crowdfunding makes them possible.

http://redteamblues.com

[Image ID: Air Force One in flight; dropping away from it are a parachute and its landing gear.]

[abr]

Sia gli Stati Uniti sia l’Europa (...) stanno cercando di riportare nel proprio territorio industrie fondamentali come quella dei microchip, mentre diverse aziende stanno uscendo dalla Cina per spostarsi in paesi meno rischiosi. La tendenza a spostare la produzione lontano dalla Cina, riportandola nel paese di origine, il cosiddetto reshoring, o in paesi alleati, il friendshoring, influenzerà inevitabilmente anche i flussi commerciali.

via https://www.ilpost.it/2023/03/16/msc-navi-dominio-commerci-merci/?utm_source=ilpost&utm_medium=leggi_anche&utm_campaign=leggi_anche