#US China tariffs 2024

[iregularlyevadetaxes]

I do think the trump administration has been more "open" about corruption as liberals claim but that's not due to any new form of government corruption, it's because the ruling class feels secure enough to flaunt it. you know all those blatant bribes going to trump from various corporations right now? same thing happened with biden, obama, etc. in fact the current state of the US healthcare system is in part due to how the pharmaceutical industry shaped the ACA. right now in 2024 you're going to see US tech companies in particular in a panic due to competition from china and threat of tariffs. that's where a lot of trump's current millions for his "inauguration fund" are coming from.

and yes while "flaunting corruption" sounds like a comic book villain thing, literally look at elon musk and tell me these people don't love reminding you of their position

[at-the-end-of-days]

Price of bread being a day’s wages

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Another semi-coherent thought: with all the talk about how Democrats need to move in a more left-wing populist direction on economic policy to win back working class voters, it makes me wonder how they're going to approach tariffs going forward.

As we know Biden left a bunch of Trump's tariffs in place, either because he agreed with them or because he thought it would be politically toxic to remove them. Bernie Sanders also talked favorably about tariffs in both his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, criticizing Trump not for imposing tariffs but for imposing bad tariffs. Kamala Harris opposed the renegotiated USMCA, and it's an article of faith in both parties now that free trade deals as ambitious as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (infamously supported by Hillary Clinton, as both Sanders and Trump pointed out in 2016) are dead on arrival in the current US political climate.

In 2024 both Trump and Biden supported blocking the takeover of US Steel (not exactly a tariff issue but in the same conversation). Harris made some (what seemed to me mostly half-hearted) attacks on Trump's proposed tariffs, describing them as a sales tax, but seemed to have a really hard time explaining why Trump's tariffs on China were kept in place.

In other words, while I see some occasional discussion of tariffs being bad around here, I'm not convinced that either party is going to have much of an anti-tariff line going forward, and unless the tariffs in the new Trump administration are so obviously a disaster that Democrats can't help trying to make political hay out of it...I think tariffs and protectionism in general are going to be around for a long time to come regardless of which party is in power.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 7, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 07, 2024

Today the Trump family posed for a post-election photo. Missing from the group was former first lady Melania Trump. Joining the family was billionaire Elon Musk, who supported Trump’s campaign both through his ownership of X, formerly Twitter, and then with $132 million in cash and with apparent giveaways to get voters to give the campaign personal information. 

As an immigrant from South Africa, Musk is barred from the presidency himself by the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a president be born in the U.S. (out of the Framers’ concern that a foreign country could put a puppet in the presidency). But he is now very close to Trump and stands to gain significantly from a Trump presidency, both through deregulation and government contracts, and through Trump’s planned tariffs on Chinese imports that will enable Musk to monopolize the electric vehicle market in the U.S. Musk also would like a victory in the culture wars; he is strongly opposed to transgender rights.

After the election results came out, Musk posted on X, “Novus Ordo Seclorum,” Latin for “New World Order.” 

At Trump’s election party, Trump said: “We have a new star: Elon. He is an amazing guy. We were sitting together tonight—you know he spent two weeks in Philadelphia and different parts of Pennsylvania campaigning? He's a character, he's a special guy. He's a super-genius, and we have to protect our geniuses, we don't have that many of them. We have to protect our super-geniuses.”

Trump’s new closeness with Musk presents an issue for the Republican Party. The president-elect is 78 and has shown signs of mental and physical deterioration, making it possible that someone will need to take his place at some point in the next four years. 

The vice president–elect, current Ohio senator J.D. Vance, who is backed by billionaire Peter Thiel, is constitutionally the next in line for the presidency, but neither Musk nor Vance has Trump’s popular support, making it unclear who will take over the leadership of the party if such a takeover is necessary. Whether either can command Trump’s supporters is also unclear. 

What is clear is that neither of them has much experience in elected office. Vance was elected senator just two years ago, and Musk comes from the business world.

There is another, major problem for the party, as well: Trump won the election in part by promising everything to everyone, but the actual policies of the MAGA party are unpopular, even with many Republican voters. 

Notably, Trump has said he will appoint Musk to head a new government efficiency commission, and Musk has vowed to cut “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget. Such cuts would decimate government services, including food programs and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Supplemental nutrition programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are used much more heavily in counties that support Trump than those that don’t. 

That will be a hard circle to square.

So will Trump’s promise to lower consumer costs while also putting tariffs of 10% to 20% on all foreign imports and of 60% on imports from China. Tariffs are borne by consumers, so by definition they will drive prices up. These two promises cannot be reconciled. 

Trump has promised mass deportations, and much of his base is fervently behind them. The Republican National Committee even had signs saying “MASS DEPORTATION NOW” made up for attendees to wave at the party’s convention. 

Priscilla Alvarez and Alayna Treene of CNN reported today that Trump’s allies have been preparing for mass detentions and deportations of undocumented immigrants, and the stock prices of private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic have soared since Trump’s election. Steven T. Dennis of Bloomberg reported that on an earnings call today, GEO chief executive officer Brian Evans told investors that filling currently empty beds could bring in $400 million a year and that the company can scale up its current surveillance, monitoring, and transportation programs to handle millions of immigrants. “This is to us an unprecedented opportunity,” he said.

But deporting up to 20 million people will be a logistical nightmare and is projected to cost from $88 billion to $315 billion a year. At the same time, much of the U.S. economy depends on undocumented immigrants, and Republican businessmen will certainly object to losing their workers. 

Tom Homan, who served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump in his first term, backed away from some of the extremes of Trump’s immigration policy when he told CBS last month: “It’s not gonna be—a mass sweep of neighborhoods. It’s not gonna be building concentration camps. I’ve read it all. It’s ridiculous…. They’ll be targeted arrests. We’ll know who we’re going to arrest, where we’re most likely to find ‘em based on numerous, you know, investigative processes.” 

Meanwhile, Democratic state lawmakers have been preparing for a potential Trump administration for more than a year, and some are putting down public markers that they will not cooperate with the extreme policies of the Trump administration. 

Trump vowed to begin his mass deportation plan in Aurora, Colorado, where he maintained—contrary to the statements of local Republican officials—that Venezuelan gangs had taken over the city. Aurora is a suburb of Denver, and yesterday the mayor of Denver, Mike Johnston, told a reporter he would not cooperate with requests that are “immoral or unethical or unfair.” 

California governor Gavin Newsom called an emergency session of the California state legislature to convene on December 2, “to help bolster our legal resources and protect our state against any unlawful actions by the incoming Trump Administration.” It will focus on funding lawsuits against any actions that impact civil liberties, reproductive rights, protection for immigrants, and climate initiatives. Newsom said the California lawmakers “will seek to work with the incoming president—but let there be no mistake, we intend to stand with states across our nation to defend our Constitution and uphold the rule of law.” 

California has the fifth largest economy in the world, and its population of 39 million people is more than four times the 9.59 million people in Hungary, the country from which MAGA Republicans are taking much of their ideological vision.  

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker, who has been called a “happy warrior,” held a press conference today, telling reporters that he will continue working to keep Illinois “a place of stability and competent governance” and vowing to protect the people of his state no matter what the new administration does. “To anyone who intends to come take away the freedom and opportunity and dignity of Illinoisans: I would remind you that a happy warrior is still a warrior,” he said. “You come for my people, you come through me.”

Trump has made it clear he intends to have a say in the decisions of the Federal Reserve, which manages interest rates, and during his first term he frequently attacked Fed chair Jerome Powell, whom he appointed, for not lowering rates to boost the economy. Trump’s advisors have suggested the president can gain power over the nation’s finances by removing members of the Fed in his next term. 

Today, when reporters asked Powell if he would resign before Trump takes office, he said no. When asked if Trump could fire or demote him or the other Fed governors, Powell was firm: “Not permitted under the law.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-returns]

Tens of thousands of Volkswagen employees have halted production to protest proposed pay cuts. The German automaker has stated it will need to close three manufacturing plants due to rising labor expenses, material shortages, and, most importantly – the climate change agenda that has demonized fossil fuels.

Over 120,000 workers now face a 10% pay cut if they can manage to keep their jobs. The IG Metall union has warned that protests will be fierce. Volkswagen remains Germany’s top-selling car brand, composing 19% of the market share. Yet profit margins have dropped from a forecast of 7% to 5.6% for 2024 after the company’s cash flow turned negative in the first half of the year. The company states it needs to save 10 billion euros by 2026 in addition to finding a way to cut another 4 billion euros. Operating profits have fallen by 11.4% and they simply cannot continue producing these EVs at the same pace they were producing dreaded fuel-powered cars because the demand is not there.

Now many blame China for providing state subsidies for EVs that are far cheaper than the vehicles produced in Germany. This is why places like the US have placed a 100% tariff on those vehicles so that there is no demand. However, there is simply low demand for electric vehicles everywhere. You cannot force people to buy EVs even if you destroy the energy sector and make prices skyrocket 300% as they did by killing Nordstream. Pushing manufacturers to switch to meet these arbitrary emission targets is killing the entire auto sector which is about 17% of Germany’s entire GDP.

Germany believes it can reduce carbon emissions by 65% by 2030, followed by an 88% reduction into 2040 before meeting gas net neutrality in 2045. They claim that Germany is five years behind on its adoption of electric vehicles as it is far from meeting its goal of 15 million EVs by 2030. The average EV price in euro shot up 7.5% in the past year to €56,669. Infrastructure and charging stations remain inadequate to meet these goals.

Germany relies heavily on automotives, and Europe relies heavily on Germany as its top economy. Now, due to climate initiatives, Volkswagen is closing plants for the first time in its 87-year history. Pay close attention to Germany’s automotive sector, as it could easily cause a ripple effect throughout the entire European economy.

[comeonamericawakeup]

Many business leaders are scoffing at the idea that a second Trump term will lead to “a MAGA autocracy,” said Jennifer Rubin. But the executive class may regret downplaying the consequences of a vengeful, wounded Trump returning to power. This time around, Trump’s populist impulses will not be constrained by aides with establishment credentials, and his radical policies and unhinged behavior will trigger “economic and political upheaval.” Trump is vowing to impose huge tariffs on Chinese and other foreign imports, to use the Justice Department as a weapon to punish his enemies, and to replace tens of thousands of federal civil servants with unqualified MAGA loyalists. Trump’s isolationism will mean cutting off U.S. military aid to Ukraine, victory for Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and a green light for China to attack Taiwan. After installing loyalists at the Pentagon, Trump will transform our nation’s military into his “Praetorian guard,” ordering U.S. troops to clear protesters from the streets. Do “industry titans” really think Trump’s campaign of retribution against Democrats, the press, and undocumented immigrants “will have no impact on the business environment?” When autocrats seize power, not even the wealthy and powerful are spared the consequences.

THE WEEK April 26, 2024

[progressivepower]

Canada PM under pressure to stand up to Trump over tariff plan; US motorists could face higher gas prices – live https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/nov/26/donald-trump-president-us-trade-tariffs-china-mexico-canada-latest-politics-news?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

[allapprovaloffersandjobs]

2024 US Election Results Live Updates: President Joe Biden meets Trump at White House, both pledge smooth transition

Link Here : https://tinyurl.com/3u8b9tjr

Biden and Xi will meet in Peru as US-China relations tested again by Trump's return

President Joe Biden will hold talks Saturday with China's Xi Jinping on the sidelines of an international summit in Peru, a face-to-face meeting that comes as Beijing braces for Donald Trump's return to the White House. A senior Biden administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement, confirmed plans for the meeting to take place while the two leaders are in Lima for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. That will come just over two months before Trump's inauguration. The official declined to comment on how Biden and his advisers would address questions certain to be raised by Xi and Chinese officials about the incoming Trump administration or whether Biden would discuss the US-China relationship with Trump during the president-elect's visit to the White House on Wednesday. Washington and Beijing have long had deep differences on the support China has given to Russia during its war in Ukraine, human rights issues, technology and Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy that Beijing claims as its own. A second Trump administration is expected to test US-China relations even more than the Republican's first term, when the US imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion in Chinese products. That brought Beijing to the negotiating table, and in 2020, the two sides signed a trade deal in which China committed to improve intellectual property rights and buy an extra $200 billion of American goods. A couple of years later, a research group showed that China had bought essentially none of the goods it had promised. (AP)

00:18 (IST) Nov 14

Melania Trump boycotts tea invitation from Jill Biden while husbands meet

Melania Trump boycotted a meeting with Jill Biden, while their husbands held a traditional meeting at the White House on Wednesday. Two hours before US President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden were to meet, the office of Melania Trump said in an X post, "Mrs Trump will not be attending today's meeting at the White House." "Her husband's return to the Oval Office to commence the transition process is encouraging, and she wishes him great success," it said. Her office did not give a reason for her not taking up First Lady Jill Biden's invitation for tea. But it added, "In this instance, several unnamed sources in the media continue to provide false, misleading, and inaccurate information. Be discerning with your source of news." It did not specifically deny any of the reports about her not meeting Jill Biden. (IANS)

00:18 (IST) Nov 14

Bitcoin rises above $90,000 on Trump euphoria

Bitcoin broke through the $90,000 level on Wednesday, as its rally showed no signs of easing on expectations that Donald Trump as U.S. president will be a boon for cryptocurrencies. The world's biggest cryptocurrency has become one of the most eye-catching movers in the week since the election and on Wednesday touched record highs. It was last up 5.49% at $93,158, marking a 32% rise since the Nov. 5 election. Smaller peer ether has also risen 37% since election day, while dogecoin, an alternative, volatile token promoted by billionaire Trump-ally Elon Musk was up more than 150%. Trump embraced digital assets during his campaign, promising to make the United States the "crypto capital of the planet" and to accumulate a national stockpile of bitcoin. (Reuters)

00:17 (IST) Nov 14

'Welcome back': Trump, Biden shake hands in White House

Joe Biden welcomed Donald Trump back to the White House on Wednesday, in a show of civility to a bitter rival who failed to extend him the same courtesy four years ago. The US president and president-elect shook hands in front of a roaring fire in the Oval Office as they pledged a smooth transition -- a stark contrast to Trump's refusal to recognize his 2020 defeat. "Welcome back," Biden, 81, said as he congratulated the 78-year-old Trump and offered brief opening remarks to the man he has repeatedly slammed as a threat to democracy. "Politics is tough, and in many cases it's not a very nice world. It is a nice world today and I appreciate it very much," Trump said. Trump added that the transfer of power would be "smooth as you can get" -- despite the fact that his transition team has not yet signed some key legal documents ahead of his inauguration as president on January 20.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Canary Media:

Despite the policy uncertainty facing renewables as the Trump administration prepares to take the wheel, the outlook for U.S. solar is generally positive, according to the just-released U.S. Solar Market Insight Q4 2024 report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and energy analysis firm Wood Mackenzie.

This year, the solar industry is set to break installation records and achieve significant manufacturing milestones — including the return of silicon solar cell production to the U.S. for the first time since 2019.

As a testament to the effectiveness of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), domestic solar module manufacturing capacity has nearly quintupled since 2022 — courtesy of new or expanded factories in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas that benefited from the law’s tax credits. The U.S. added a record-breaking 9.3 gigawatts of new solar module production capacity in the third quarter alone.

The IRA is also responsible for bringing solar cell manufacturing back to the U.S., with Suniva (which filed for bankruptcy in 2017) restarting production at its Norcross, Georgia factory in November. Solar cells do the actual conversion of sunlight to electricity, but domestic production was halted due to lower-cost imports. The vast majority of the world’s cells are made in China and four Southeast Asian countries whose solar exports are now subject to steep U.S. tariffs.

The U.S. currently has close to 40 gigawatts in module manufacturing capacity, according to Wood Mackenzie — enough to meet almost all of its own demand for panels. But the country will still need to rely on imported solar cells for the foreseeable future; less than 10 gigawatts of cell capacity is under construction in the states.

With the exception of the residential rooftop segment, U.S. solar installations are overperforming in the face of trade headwinds. Corporate and state renewable energy goals are creating high demand for solar, though Wood Mackenzie expects the energy source’s blistering growth to taper off over the next five years as developers face the same woes as the broader power generation sector: a limited workforce, equipment constraints, and interconnection delays.

[longwindedbore]

https://apple.news/AseyBJ3nBRse9ugkMjZ7oTw

47-Elect learned nothing from the experiences of Dolt 45 - because one first has to admit you erred to learn from experience.

From 2019:

Guess what…when you impose Tariffs on what you import from another country for the benefit of your domestic producers - even though it’s your own population that pays the Tariffs - the whole of the other country takes the Tariffs as an insult. Giving their domestic producers of that which you export to demand Tariffs.

Because we’ve learned in 2024, it’s effing impossible to reason with the determinedly ignorant on Tariffs. Apparently in any country.

During Dolt-45’s China Manufacturing trade war China imposed revenge Tariff’s on US farm exports. Farm bankruptcies skyrocketed under Trump (cut in half after Biden reversed Trump’s policies). Trump with the Dem House 2019-20 paid subsidies to farmers of a mere $20 Billion.

Of course farming communities voted 78% for Trump ingnoring that a GOP House wouldn’t have given him hem zilch.

Subsidies PLUS the potential to expand your acreage by buying your neighbor’s property when Trump’s 2025-28 policies bankrupt them?

[postmodernmulticoloredcloak]

"A different world" article by Walter Veltroni (Italian leftist politician and intellectual)

Originally published in Italian on Corriere.it, 12 November 2024

What will the world look like in the Trusk era? I am afraid that those who think, even among European supporters, that the pledges of radical transformation of America's state structure and international relations, promoted by Trump with Musk's support, are just sly campaign boutades, good for grabbing popular votes and good for being put in the overflowing basket of betrayed promises by U.S. presidential candidates, are wrong. After all, I have heard many say, in the first four years, an age ago in the frenetic digital time, what changed? Yes, things like the revocation of climate agreements and the sabotage of Obama's Medicare with maneuvers that produced more than two million people without health insurance. But in other areas, financial policy or international relations, we did not see significant and radical changes between administrations then.

I believe, however, that this time will be different. I believe that along the axis of Musk's millenarian thinking and Bannon's apocalyptic suggestions, we will know a time of substantial change, not continuity. This will be the case, we are seeing it, in Ukraine, and it will be interesting to follow the contortions of European politics as Zelensky is left alone and we rely on Putin's expansionist self-control in the hope that he does not intend to go beyond the military conquests already acquired or rapidly being acquired.

The world is no longer in the balance of the past and anything is possible. Putin has lucidly understood this, speaking of the unprecedented geopolitical condition and cultivating the idea of a new Russian greatness with the establishment of a Eurasian power capable of competing with the Chinese giant.

The world is changing its balances, and in this context the process of depowering the European Union, corroded by the sovereignisms and populist nationalisms animated in the member states, is functional to a strategy of redrawing the balance of power, economic and financial. If NATO is weaker, if genuine European integration strategies (defense and budget policies) are put on the back burner, the prospect will prevail of a world of three fortresses-Russia, China, and the U.S.-fueled by the weaknesses of other markets, and of nation-states wearied by tariffs and each forced to individually negotiate their own security and terms of trade with the big arbiters. Steve Bannon said it with great clarity in Viviana Mazza's enlightening interview, “Yes, tariffs are coming, you will have to pay to get access to the U.S. market. It's not free anymore, the free market is over.” There is, even on the right, little to laugh about and little to celebrate, not least because of the aggressive and intimidating tone used against those who preside over our country's government. Therefore, I believe that the Trusk bloc's strategy is broader and should be considered for what it is, without presumptuous reductions to folklore of a line that is nourished by analysis, means, clear intentions.

The idea has spread, Musk only repeats, that democracy, as a mechanism based on popular vote and the intermediation represented by delegation, beginning with Parliaments, is a heavy and incongruent frill for a society of the instant as the digital one has become. From this point of view, it is paradoxical that the critique of globalization, however, rests on the postulate that the only universal dimension allowed is that of the technological markets, at least in the sphere of consumption and relational communicative dynamics, with social media elevated to a global chamber. Musk recently argued that newspapers and television do not serve to guarantee communication, that the only possible truth is the one produced by tens of millions of people who at the same time enter viewpoints and news into the web, little matter whether grounded in reality or not. A hundred thousand who become no one, and one, just one, who decides.

The pattern is the same as in politics: allow confused background noise, no matter how critical, while a man of providence makes decisions on behalf of the people. Similarly on social media, algorithms regulate the power relations between isolated individuals and the sophisticated machines that flood the network in which the need for knowledge and the illusion of relationship is consumed with news, real or invented. Once communication is depowered, the judiciary put on leash, intolerance spread and legitimized through yesterday's unpronounceable words, we find ourselves where the Trusk bloc honestly told voters it wanted to go: toward a different world. One cannot accuse of slyness or masking intentions. The Trusk people have clearly stated their strategy, and on that project they have achieved unequivocal electoral success.

Fast and furious. On the first Tuesday in November the Republicans did not win, something else is being born: a power project for this revolutionary time.

Feebly stammering a repudiation of all this in the name of political correctness or arguing passionately about whether one should, on the left, be more moderate or more extremist, is a dabbler's delight.

Roosevelt, with Mussolini in power and the Great Depression at home, did not organize a flashmob, he invented the New Deal.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matthew Downhour at The UnPopulist:

Both during the 2024 campaign and in the current debates regarding President-elect Donald Trump’s appointments—particularly for Tulsi Gabbard (director of national intelligence), Pete Hegseth (secretary of defense), and other national security positions—one of the common but rather puzzling insults thrown at Democrats is that they are “warmongers.” This may come as a surprise, given that Joe Biden was the president who finally ended the war in Afghanistan, while Trump famously canceled the nuclear deal with Iran and ordered the assassination of its most important military operative. The key idea behind the notion that Democrats are warmongers—and that Donald Trump, by contrast, is a dove—appears to be that Democrats are prone to starting wars because they are “globalists,” never putting America first and always getting too involved in everyone else’s business. And these Democratic “globalists,” either through idealistic do-goodery or to protect and advance cosmopolitan economic interests, actively look to draw the United States into foreign conflicts.

Certainly, the ostensible danger of overseas trade has often been used—as by Thomas Jefferson and Herbert Hoover—as a justification to limit that trade. But as a characterization of Democrats, it just isn’t accurate. In the U.S. and elsewhere, internal coalitions that denigrate foreign trade have often been the most bellicose. Their coalitions have the least to lose from war, and swearing off free trade makes seizing resources through force more attractive. This means that the incoming “America First” coalition is likely to increase, not decrease, the risk of the U.S. entering into international conflict.

Nationalist Coalitions Provoke International Hostilities

The history surrounding the First World War provides a framework for understanding our current moment. In a 2014 article in International Security, published a century after the war first began, Etel Solingen evaluates the way countries’ internal and external politics interact to create more or less bellicose states. Comparing China with Imperial Germany 100 years earlier, Solingen argues that the primary driver of foreign policy is domestic political coalitions, which tend towards being either more inward-looking or more internationalizing. Inward-looking coalitions prefer autarkic economies that in turn favor local, static elites. This is especially attractive to those who have gained their status and wealth through local dominance of internationally non-competitive economic sectors. Because a modern economy requires a variety of resources, however, this disavowal of free trade means inward-looking coalitions are perhaps misnamed, as they in fact seek opportunities to gain natural resources and control markets outside the borders of the metropole, primarily through imperialism or settler colonialism.

Internationalizing coalitions, by contrast, are made up of “internationalists,” those more dynamic economic and cultural elites for whom global interaction and free trade is an opportunity, not a threat. Internationally competitive industrialists may fall in this category, as do many academics, cultural producers, and others who benefit from free international trade. Though in the U.S., and earlier, the U.K., such figures may see the value in a strong navy to protect sea lanes, they generally are more dovish and find both the taxes needed to run a military and the disruptions caused by warfare to be contrary to their economic and ideological interests. Cosmopolitanism tends to trump nationalism in their hierarchy of values.

An inward-looking coalition dominated Germany in the run-up to 1914 in an arrangement called the “Marriage of Iron and Rye.” Starting in the 1870s, the noble, landowning Junkers demanded protectionist tariffs to guard against cheap American grain, while industrialists sought the same to keep out British manufactured goods. Solingen argues that this preponderance of inward-looking forces reduced the war aversion of the German Empire. This coalition was more prone to brinkmanship than a more internationalizing coalition would have been—the Democratic Party, by contrast, would not lead the U.S. to enter the war until several years after its outbreak. Solingen also notes the importance of Germany’s neighbors in contributing to the outbreak of the war, cataloging how Austria, Serbia, and Russia also were influenced by strong inward-looking coalitions, which also influenced their appetite for brinkmanship and willingness to enter into a war that devastated internationalist interests for decades after.

Solingen concluded that China of 2014 was still dominated by an internationalizing coalition, and that despite rising nationalism, reliance on foreign trade and direct investment meant it was likely to remain conflict-averse. The last 10 years, however, have seen Chinese interests grow increasingly inward-looking, as the country imposes controls on key material exports and seeks greater economic self-sufficiency. Other major rivals of the United States like Russia and Iran have been forced by international sanctions to also adopt an autarkic worldview, leaving primarily “inward looking” (though imperialist) coalitions in charge of those countries. The ingredients for a more dangerous world, in other words, are mixing at precisely the moment the U.S. has itself turned in a similar direction.

[...]

America First Cronyism and Bellicosity

The ideal of self-contained autarky does not mean, as one might suppose, a less interventionist view on the world. Instead, eroding the norms of free trade obligates an advanced economy to have direct access to whatever resources it might need, or else a way to ensure the countries it buys from are perpetually in friendly hands. America’s own history can be something of a guide here—the same presidents (William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft) who presided over the high tariffs of the Gilded Age also committed the United States to annexing Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, and creating a virtual empire out of most of Latin America. Coalitions that are generally inward-looking are not above having their eyes wander avariciously to foreign soil. Far from facilitating a peaceful transition to “America First” isolationism, a United States traveling this path is likely to be less averse to bellicosity and more willing to risk war, having weakened any internal commercial or civil society coalition that might push back against it. In fact, any pushback, at least from corporate America, is likely to be muted. Under an “America First” regime, firms will have strong incentive to join the inward-looking coalition if they can, much like Prussian industrialists and farmers a century ago. The major economic policy of the Trump campaign was sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. If these tariffs operate to “protect” American industries from competition, history suggests that those industries will become dependent on tariffs for their very viability, causing firms to see trade as a liability, not an opportunity. Commercial interests will be less willing to resist autocratic encroachments because their futures will be dictated largely by the whims of the Trump administration’s tariff policy—as well as any economic aid doled out to industries affected by retaliatory tariffs, as agriculture was during the last Trump administration. Solingen notes that with inward-looking coalitions, “External insecurity and competition offer rationales for extracting societal resources, collecting monopoly rents, creating cartels, rewarding protectionist constituencies, and undermining internationalizing competitors.” By 1914, very few interests remained in continental Europe that could forcefully stand against the road to war; internationalist coalitions had been politically beaten in most states.

Many of these trends are already notable today. For example, the specter of external insecurity was used by the first Trump administration to justify emergency tariffs on steel and other goods, and similarly the Biden administration argued for the strategic necessity of tariffs on electric vehicles and photovoltaic cells. The close connection between Elon Musk and the Trump transition team creates myriad new opportunities to undercut competitors and reward Musk’s own companies, including by the use of foreign policy. For example, Vice President-elect JD Vance’s threat to pull back from NATO commitments if the European Union regulates X in ways the administration disapproves of clearly shows preference for one business over similarly positioned ones, precisely because, with Musk’s promotion of accounts opposing immigration as well as aid to Ukraine, X is a key media player in the broader inward-looking coalition. Other key players may be less flamboyant than Musk but it is safe to assume that they are similarly adjusting their strategies to better survive an inward-looking coalition, and, in so doing, strengthening the coalition itself.

The fascist-elect’s economy-crushing tariffs will lead America to the road to war that no one wants.

[mariacallous]

Love it or hate it, you have to admit Temu had a banger year. Launched in late 2022, the Chinese-owned ecommerce site, known for selling a vast array of astonishingly affordable goods, took only two years to become a household name in the US. Over the past 12 months, it has topped download charts, surpassing other viral apps like ChatGPT and Threads, and now operates in dozens of countries around the world. Even its biggest rival, Amazon, recently introduced a Temu clone called Amazon Haul that closely resembles the original, both in terms of its logistics supply chain and user interface.

Temu is projected to earn more than $50 billion in total sales this year, according to analysts from AB Bernstein and Tech Buzz China, potentially tripling its 2023 figure. Temu’s website now gets nearly 700 million visits worldwide every month, and Apple recently revealed it was the most downloaded app of 2024 on iPhones in the US.

Temu has now fully replaced Wish, an earlier bargain online shopping site, in the cultural lexicon as the signifier of knockoffs or budget-friendly alternatives. The winner of the recent Timothée Chalamet lookalike contest in New York City, for example, calls himself “Temu-thée Chalamet.” Tens of millions of ordinary people have tried out the app, many of whom learned about it through one of Temu’s seemingly unavoidable and relentless advertising campaigns. At this point, your grandma is probably obsessed with Temu, too.

“My friends and family members who didn't know what it was in 2023 do now,” says Moira Weigel, an assistant professor at Harvard University who studies transnational online marketplaces. “Random relatives who know that I study China or ecommerce will say, ‘Oh, you must know all about Temu,’ in a way that didn’t happen a year ago.”

Weigel says that Temu has done a few things right, including identifying the correct suppliers in China, targeting appropriate customer segments, and finding an inexpensive way to ship products from one to the other. That allowed the shopping platform to defy early analyst predictions that it would quickly burn through its cash reserves and flame out.

Temu, which is owned by PDD, one of the biggest ecommerce giants in China, is moving and pivoting at a speed that its Western counterparts can’t really grasp, says Juozas Kaziukėnas, founder of the ecommerce intelligence firm Marketplace Pulse. “When you look at a company like Temu, it's going a thousand miles an hour,” he says.

Kaziukėnas believes the most important thing Temu did this year was quickly switch its focus away from shipping small packages through air cargo and start building local inventory supply chains in the US and other countries. “This year, it started with 100 percent of goods coming from China; now in the US, 50 percent of them are coming from local warehouses. For Western marketplaces, these types of changes would have taken years,” Kaziukėnas says.

Still, Temu does not have a shortage of looming challenges. In the US, the Biden administration is eager to dismantle a tariff exemption rule that critics say unfairly benefits Temu before it leaves the White House. In Europe, Temu is under formal investigation for allegedly selling illegal products and getting users addicted to its app. The company is also often criticized around the world for its negative environmental impact, labor practices, and alleged misuse of user data, including allegations from researchers in the US that the app poses a national security risk.

Whether Temu can overcome these hurdles will depend on how fast the company can adjust its supply chain and pivot away from the most troublesome aspects of how it operates—before regulators take action. “What Temu was, is, and what Temu will be in the future are perhaps different things,” Kaziukėnas says.

From $1 Deals to Dupes

Temu made its name by promoting dirt-cheap deals that are often too good to believe, like $5 purses and $2 wireless headphones. It spent millions promoting the tagline “shop like a billionaire” in a series of Super Bowl advertisements, and that’s indeed what the app used to feel like: Identical or very similar products cost only a fraction of what they did on Amazon or Walmart, and it was hard to resist the temptation of adding a dozen more things to your shopping cart when they each were less than $1.

Temu managed to pull it off because it exploited a few areas of untapped potential, says Weigel. On the buyer side, it targeted price-conscious shoppers living in a time of high inflation. On the seller side, it scouted out Chinese factories that needed to keep their production lines running, but had no idea how to enter overseas markets. To connect them, Temu figured out it could take advantage of the so-called de minimis rule to send items affordably through air cargo directly to customers’ doorsteps. The provision allows people to send packages to the US duty-free as long as the goods inside are worth less than $800.

Because this business model is based on shipping everything from China and doesn’t require much local inventory, it’s very easy to replicate in different markets. As of December 2024, Temu’s website shows that it’s available in 86 countries, while Amazon, having been in business for three decades, operates in only 22. “In recent history, like the past 10 to 15 years, the first place people were interested in selling is the US and Europe, because they're large markets, prices can be higher, and so on,” says Weigel, who traveled to China this year to interview vendors selling on Amazon and Temu. “Now, there is increasing interest among these small-to-medium-size Chinese businesses in expanding in Africa, Southeast Asia, and also Central Asia … Multiple people talk to me about how young and rapidly growing the population in Africa is.”

But that doesn’t mean Temu is totally different from Amazon. In fact, the company has begun borrowing a number of tactics from the US ecommerce giant. In March, Temu reportedly started working with local warehousing companies in the US and allowing vendors on the platform to store their own US inventory instead of shipping directly from China. This is essentially what Amazon has been doing for years with its Chinese-based marketplace sellers, a strategy that allows it to deliver orders in as little as a single day. And now, these locally shipped products account for nearly half of Temu’s sales in the US, according to The Information.

What this means is that many of the products Temu sells are no longer exempt from American import duties, significantly reducing the price advantage that Temu used to have. But the strategy allows Temu to ship physically larger items to US warehouses through ocean freight before putting them up for sale, and then, the products can be delivered faster to customers, who previously often needed to wait a week or more for their packages to arrive.

That is why consumers are increasingly buying things like couches or other furniture on Temu, and also why sometimes prices on the site end up not being much lower than on Amazon or other online retailers. “I think it's pretty clear that Temu is becoming a more expensive offering,” says Kaziukėnas. “I talked to someone at Temu months ago, and they said that they're repositioning Temu from cheap to affordable.”

Higher prices can help recoup some of the financial losses that Temu incurred in its earlier days when it was primarily focused on expansion, but it could also create an identity crisis for the platform. If it doesn’t have shocking $1 deals, then what does Temu really stand for? How can it compete with Amazon and Walmart when the other two are often perceived as more reliable, both in terms of shipping speed and product quality? “I think that’s a problem for Temu already, that it doesn't really have a strong brand to consumers,” Kaziukėnas says.

Lingerings Risks—and Rewards

The days might be numbered for the de minimis exemption. The White House announced in September that it would crack down on “abuse” of the provision, citing a sleuth of reasons ranging from intellectual property violations to fentanyl smuggling. It’s not clear yet how exactly the regulation might change—lawmakers may get rid of it completely or lower the price threshold—but a fix could be finalized before president-elect Donald Trump takes office next month.

If it happens soon, the change will no doubt make it harder for Temu to remain competitive, but it’s not going to eliminate it from the field. So much of the conversation in Washington this year has revolved around restricting de minimis to contain Temu, Kaziukėnas says, but the platform has already taken significant steps to reduce its dependence on it. Its ability to ship under de minimis and handle everything from inventory to pricing used to be the main selling points Temu used to lure Chinese suppliers, but now, it’s doing a 180 to address the risks—and the strategy seems to be working. “The regulators are still only now trying to figure out what to do. And by the time they have figured out what they actually need to do, these retailers will be something different,” Kaziukėnas says, referring to Temu and competitors like Shein that rely on de minimis.

Of course, there are other risks that the company needs to address. What TikTok is going through right now—the app could be blocked in the US as soon as next month—should serve as a cautionary tale for Temu, as the latter is already receiving similar scrutiny from lawmakers over its Chinese ownership and data protection practices.

The possibility of being blocked in the US is real for Temu, but Weigel points out that there’s less of a political urgency to act on an ecommerce platform than a social media one that has elicited concerns about things like artificial intelligence and disinformation. “​​While there is a bipartisan consensus that people are concerned with the implications of China's tech rise, the incentives to police Temu are lower than TikTok,” she says. The Chinese ecommerce vendors she has spoken to don’t seem very concerned either. “These people are very nimble and flexible. My sense was that it was a thing people were curious about, but not something they were afraid about,” Weigel says.

After all, Temu’s aggressive expansion into other markets gives them plenty of alternative places to find customers if things get really ugly between the US and China. On a recent trip to Shenzhen, Weigel says she met a woman who heads a cross-border ecommerce industry association. One of the first things she told Weigel: “We don’t necessarily make the American and the European markets our top priority.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 26, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 27, 2024

Today presented a good example of the difference between governance by social media and governance by policy.

Although incoming presidents traditionally stay out of the way of the administration currently in office, last night, Trump announced on his social media site that he intends to impose a 25% tariff on all products coming into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump claimed that they could solve the problem “easily” and that until they do, “it is time for them to pay a very big price!”

In a separate post, he held China to account for fentanyl and said he would impose a 10% tariff on all Chinese products on top of the tariffs already levied on those goods. “Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he added.

In fact, since 2023 there has been a drop of 14.5% in deaths from drug overdose, the first such decrease since the epidemic began, and border patrol apprehensions of people crossing the southern border illegally have fallen to the lowest number since August 2020, in the midst of the pandemic. In any case, a study by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that from 2019 to 2024, more than 80% of the people caught with fentanyl at ports of entry—where the vast majority of fentanyl is seized—were U.S. citizens.

Very few undocumented immigrants and very little illegal fentanyl come into the U.S. from Canada.

Washington Post economics reporter Catherine Rampell noted that Mexico and Canada are the biggest trading partners of the United States. Mexico sends cars, machinery, electrical equipment, and beer to the U.S., along with about $19 billion worth of fruits and vegetables. About half of U.S. fresh fruit imports come from Mexico, including about two thirds of our fresh tomatoes and about 90% of our avocados.

Transferring that production to the U.S. would be difficult, especially since about half of the 2 million agricultural workers in the U.S. are undocumented and Trump has vowed to deport them all. Rampell points out as well that Project 2025 calls for getting rid of the visa system that gives legal status to agricultural workers. U.S. farm industry groups have asked Trump to spare the agricultural sector, which contributed about $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product in 2023, from his mass deportations.

Canada exports a wide range of products to the U.S., including significant amounts of oil. Rampell quotes GasBuddy’s head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan, as saying that a 25% tax on Canadian crude oil would increase gas prices in the Midwest and the Rockies by 25 cents to 75 cents a gallon, costing U.S. consumers about $6 billion to $10 billion more per year.

Canada is also the source of about a quarter of the lumber builders use in the U.S., as well as other home building materials. Tariffs would raise prices there, too, while construction is another industry that will be crushed by Trump’s threatened deportations. According to NPR’s Julian Aguilar, in 2022, nearly 60% of the more than half a million construction workers in Texas were undocumented.

Construction company officials are begging Trump to leave their workers alone. Deporting them “would devastate our industry, we wouldn’t finish our highways, we wouldn’t finish our schools,” the chief executive officer of a major Houston-based construction company told Aguilar. “Housing would disappear. I think they’d lose half their labor.”

Former trade negotiator under George W. Bush John Veroneau said Trump’s plans would violate U.S. trade agreements, including the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) that replaced the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement that Trump killed. The USMCA was negotiated during Trump’s own first term, and although it was based on NAFTA, he praised it as “the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made.”

Trump apologists immediately began to assure investors that he really didn’t mean it. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman posted that Trump wouldn’t impose the tariffs if “Mexico and Canada stop the flow of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into the U.S.” Trump’s threat simply meant that Trump “is going to use tariffs as a weapon to achieve economic and political outcomes which are in the best interest of America,” Ackman wrote.

Iowa Republican lawmaker Senator Chuck Grassley, who represents a farm state that was badly burned by Trump’s tariffs in his first term, told reporters that he sees the tariff threats as a “negotiating tool.”

Foreign leaders had no choice but to respond. Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum issued an open letter to Trump pointing out that Mexico has developed a comprehensive immigration system that has reduced border encounters by 75% since December 2023, and that the U.S. CBP One program has ended the “caravans” he talks about. She noted that it is imperative for the U.S. and Mexico jointly to “arrive at another model of labor mobility that is necessary for your country and to address the causes that lead families to leave their places of origin out of necessity.”

She noted that the fentanyl problem in the U.S. is a public health problem and that Mexican authorities have this year “seized tons of different types of drugs, 10,340 weapons, and arrested 15,640 people for violence related to drug trafficking,” and added that “70% of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from your country.” She also suggested that Mexico would retaliate with tariffs of its own if the U.S. imposed tariffs on Mexico.

Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau did not go that far but talked to Trump shortly after the social media post. The U.S. is Canada’s biggest trading partner, and a 25% tariff would devastate its economy. The premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, seemed to try to keep her province’s oil out of the line of fire by agreeing with Trump that the Canadian government should work with him and adding, “The vast majority of Alberta’s energy exports to the US are delivered through secure and safe pipelines which do not in any way contribute to these illegal activities at the border.”

Trudeau has called an emergency meeting with Canada’s provincial premiers tomorrow to discuss the threat.

Spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington Liu Pengyu simply said: “No one will win a trade war or a tariff war” and “the idea of China knowingly allowing fentanyl precursors to flow into the United States runs completely counter to facts and reality.”

In contrast to Trump’s sudden social media posts that threaten global trade and caused a frenzy today, President Joe Biden this evening announced that, after months of negotiations, Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and France, to take effect at 4:00 a.m. local time on Wednesday. “This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities,” Biden said.

Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah attacked Israel shortly after Hamas’s attack of October 7, 2023. Fighting on the border between Israel and Lebanon has turned 300,000 Lebanese people and 70,000 Israelis into refugees, with Israel bombing southern Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah’s tunnel system and killing its leaders. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, Israeli attacks have killed more than 3,000 people and injured more than 13,000, while CBS News reports that about 90 Israeli soldiers and nearly 50 Israeli civilians have been killed in the fighting. Under the agreement, Israel’s forces currently occupying southern Lebanon will withdraw over the next 60 days as Lebanon’s army moves in. Hezbollah will be kept from rebuilding.

According to Laura Rozen in her newsletter Diplomatic, before the agreement went into effect, Israel increased its airstrikes in Beirut and Tyre.

When he announced the deal, Biden pushed again for a ceasefire in Gaza, whose people, he said, “have been through hell. Their…world is absolutely shattered.” Biden called again for Hamas to release the more than 100 hostages it still holds and to negotiate a ceasefire. Biden said the U.S. will “make another push with Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Israel, and others to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza with the hostages released and the end to the war without Hamas in power.”

Today’s announcement, Biden said, brings closer the realization of his vision for a peaceful Middle East where both Israel and a Palestinian state are established and recognized, a plan he tried to push before October 7 by linking Saudi Arabia’s normalization of relations with Israel to a Palestinian state. Biden has argued that such a deal is key to Israel’s long-term security, and today he pressed Israel to “be bold in turning tactical gains against Iran and its proxies into a coherent strategy that secures Israel’s long-term…safety and advances a broader peace and prosperity in the region.”

“I believe this agenda remains possible,” Biden said. “And in my remaining time in office, I will work tirelessly to advance this vision of—for an integrated, secure, and prosperous region, all of which…strengthens America’s national security.”

“Today’s announcement is a critical step in advancing that vision,” Biden said. “It reminds us that peace is possible.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-returns]

By Michael Snyder

The Economic Collapse

December 4, 2024

Donald Trump is not messing around.  After trying to play nice during his first administration, Trump is making it very clear that he fully intends to use the full power of the presidency to shape economic policy during his second administration.  In particular, Trump is planning to impose massive tariffs on other nations that attempt to stand in the way of the MAGA agenda.  Last week, Trump threatened to impose 25 percent tariffs on all products coming into the United States from Mexico and Canada if those two countries do not work with him to secure our borders…

President-elect Donald Trump on Monday promised massive hikes in tariffs on goods coming from Mexico, Canada and China starting on the first day of his administration, a policy that could sharply increase costs for American businesses and consumers.

The move, Trump said, will be in retaliation for illegal immigration and “crime and drugs” coming across the border.

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”