Lacking refutation to my comments - you now are projecting your exact issues on to me. The whole nonsense narrative with respect to China is spoon fed Trump Gibberish. The media does not even address the issues that I have been talking about - because that would contradict the Establishment narrative. You are the one who is spouting Establishment narrative .. not I.
Destruction of China and India's economies will lead to reduction of pollution and deforestation, so people will be the winners.
Well again, that will depend on the 2020 elections. Going back to taking advantage of the US sounds more profitable. I don't think they would consider your plan to abandon the US economy unless they were forced into it...by a Trump win.
How do you think they "took advantage of the U.S." without the agreement of U.S. corporations and politicians from both sides? Nixon opened China. Clinton granted them "most favored nation" trade status. The almost simultaneous opening of China and the economic strategy of "shareholder value" was not, IMO, coincidental. Once the importance of profit exceeded national interests, U.S. corporations rushed to China for cheaper labor and the promise of larger markets. And, we wanted to move manufacturing into China as much as they wanted us to come. The opening of China was the successful (for them) equivalent to Lenin's "New Economic Policy," spoiled by the COMINTERN and Adolf Hitler's Germany. Today, GM sells more vehicles in China than in the U.S.
That was interesting. You actually answered the very question you were asking me! So here is your answer, "Clinton granted them "most favored nation" trade status. The almost simultaneous opening of China and the economic strategy of "shareholder value" was not, IMO, coincidental. Once the importance of profit exceeded national interests, U.S. corporations rushed to China for cheaper labor and the promise of larger markets." Of course you left out intellectual property theft by I would say the bigger problem is voting to grant them "most favored nation" status. A terrible mistake that has greatly damaged our country. But keep hope alive! A Democrat may win in 2020 and we can go back to those days!
Nonsense...a Republican Congress had 12 years to correct the situation...they did NOTHING. Trump offers the way to a two-class national economy of a few rich and many poor. The "horse is out of the barn" and was long prior to Trump. The way forward is not to go backwards it is to find our own niche in a global economy.
I agree that industrialization is a major problem with respect to pollution - it is a bigger and more urgent threat to the environment than Global Warming - but gets very little coverage. This however has nothing to do with the Trade war - and the Trade war is not going to impact the pollution equation in China by any significant amount.
Much of their energy, I believe, comes from domestic coal. And, they are attempting to convert to non-fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, while still maintaining economic growth.
True ... China is taking measures to combat pollution - now that they have progressed along the industrialization path - and seen the effects first hand. It is the initial phases of industrialization that are the dirtiest.
Trade wars at least in theory should slow down the economies, so it might have some indirect effect on reduction of pollution and predatory deforestation.
As stated in my previous post - "insignificant" - and it is quite possible that a trade war could exacerbate overall pollution. In some areas it is a certainty that pollution will be exacerbated ... for example - in the case where China starts getting crude oil from Nigeria rather than the US.
Back in '08 China was placed on the world stage and failed miserably. Even after a vehicle ban, shutting down factories and construction before the games the pollution was still horrendous. The Beijing Olympics of 2008 were the most polluted games ever with athletes and spectators exposed to dangerous level of smog, researchers have concluded. The level of toxic smog of soot particles in the air was so high that at times the sun was blotted out. Despite Chinese Government measures to reduce pollution around their capital city by shutting down factories, restricting car usage and slowing down construction, high levels of pollutants persisted. Athletes couldn't wait to run the 1500m in this. 11 years later and the only thing that has changed is more people wearing surgical masks.
Very true - which is why they are taking serious steps to curb pollution - having first hand experience of what a nightmare industrialization can cause. I am an avid Formula 1 fan ... the Chinese Grand Prix - there is always this haze which obstructs to some degree the view. As stated previously -Pollution of the Oceans is the number 1 Environmental issue .. Industrialization and Population growth being 2/3. Global warming perhaps comes in at 4 but it is this that gets all the attention and almost no attention is paid to these more serious environmental issues. To put things in perspective .. I read a study a decade ago which looked at consumption. 1st world countries were at 36 on a per person basis. Someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Africa is (1). China at the time was at (11). The study stated that if China were to reach our level of consumption - world resource production would have to nearly double. That's just China - never mind India and much of the rest of the world. At the time of the study there were roughly 1.4 Billion people industrialized - first world style. Now there is perhaps 1.8 Billion industrialized out of a total of 7.5 Billion. In other words .. not very many - and industrializing the rest is going to result in a massive increase in pollution.
What does a Republican Congress have to do with this? The reason Trump won the nomination and not any of the 16 others is because they liked the status quo. As have the Democrats. I admit I don't understand what your "niche" is that you are referring to. That's one of the problems with trying to discuss policy issues with Democrats. You guys can be awful vague with the details. So you hate what Trump is doing but don't actually offer an alternative. So far the Democratic alternative is to return to the pre-Trump status quo. If that's not the "niche" you are referring to, what is your policy?
'I like stability and consistency' said the frog in the pot. 'Hey what are you doing?' Cried the frog. 'dont open the lid! Dont jump out! Now you are kicking the pot, you crazy trump!' And the frog jumped away cursing that iresponsible, irational Trump who kucked the pot, like a crazy frog. She nevef knew her life were saved.
It's actually an economic theory usually espoused by Republicans...countries trade freely by finding what they do best at the lowest price. I suppose you could say it replaced "mercantilism," an earlier economic theory to which Trump apparently wants to return. Republicans basically controlled Congress from the 1994 election to the 2006 election. Twelve years, during most of which time they could have passed "Fair Trade" provisions in regard to Chinese trade violations. They didn't. Why not? My guess would be China's been "our creditor," our "bank."
Trump called the game, that was a good start. Next step is to punish those corporations that deal with China.
Trump has lowered our clean water standards,he has reduced EPA clean air standards,he has allowed hunting of endangered species and agreed to mining on public lands,he has gutted Obamacare and put as many high costs as he can back into it resulting in the number covered to be severely reduced and he has tried to reduce the Obama era gas mileage standards,he is in effect DIRTY DONALD!!!He has no ethics no morality no religion, worshipping only his own graven image.
Hahaha...you have it backwards...it's the Trump supporters who don't believe in global warming and/or the human contributions to it. They are the "frogs."
So your policy is... to return to the pre-Trump status quo. That's what I thought. But why are you picking on Republican Congresses? It sounds like you are in agreement with their view of Chinese trade....and Democratic Congresses for that matter.
Not at all. I think both Parties should have addressed the "China Problem" years ago. I trace both Nixon's opening to China and Trump's attempts to close that door to the same person...Henry Kissinger and his Realpolitik. Nixon used the opening of China, both strategically and tactically...the former to divide the Sino-Soviet Bloc, the latter to end the Vietnam War. Trump's relation with Russia is to do the opposite...and ally ourselves with Russia against China...while tactically probably personally profiting in some way as a result. Read Kissinger's doctoral thesis on the Congress of Vienna, you'll begin to understand. I prefer Obama's approach...to recognize our decline in global influence from the post WW II days and replace Super Power dominance with collective security. I believe that approach better reflects the realities of today, rather than attempt to return to an emphasis on nationalism and U.S. dominance via bi-lateral relationships. Beyond that, I consider Trump a racist and a supporter of white cultural nationalism. But, he loses friends fast and the circle is becoming smaller and smaller. The few that are left are now going to rapidly grow tired of playing musical chairs with him in control of the music.
