The current US administration is bound by the constitution. The president does not have unlimited power at all, however it might feel like it to the democrats.
You're funny. The current US Supreme Court, for example, has ruled that the President is immune to criminal prosecution for anything that is an official action - that's undefined but presumably implies that official actions do include things that he might otherwise be liable to criminal prosecution for.
Border control is a republican priority. Trump was popularly elected. That is democracy, whether you like it or not.
Shooting citizens was not part of his manifesto. Also, arresting people who've already been given leave to remain in the country is not border control.
Et cetera.
Just because Trump.was democratically elected doesn't make his government democratic. Trump has already attempted to overturn the results of one election.
China is most definitely not a capitalist economy as we hoped it would be when we let them into the WTO. Heavy subsidies and control by the government. No free market there.
The technical term for the Chinese arrangement is state capitalism. That is, industry is controlled by the people who have capital who happen to be part of a highly corrupt state apparatus.
(Free market and capitalism are not synonymous. A monopoly imposed by a capitalist firm or cartel is just as much a monopoly as one imposed by the state. For that matter, a market is still free even if the state is subsidising industries that would otherwise fail to provide universal or niche service.)
The immunity to criminal prosecution is but a tiny part of the significant checks and balances of the democratic system including impeachment, control of funding through congress ( and declarations of war) senate approvals, the judicial system, etc etc.
Oh and you can vote a president out after 4 years if all of the above doesn't work. In China? No longer the case and it's not an election from the people, it's from the communist party.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
In any case, on present showing, if China moved against the Philippines or Indonesia or Australia, I believe Trump would bluster a lot and then back down as soon as China stood up to him.
Not according to their recent National Security Strategies released publicly.
And you believe the Trump government will stick by anything it has announced publicly? Oh you sweet delicate flower.
SIGNIFICANT economic interests, particularly in the high end semi conductor game (which controls so much of our new technology) makes it a near certainty.
It's all about the economy, stupid ( so someone famous once said).
The EU and US have started producing their own, but I imagine we are nowhere near the capacity we need as we only started recently, because of the threat.
The technical term for the Chinese arrangement is state capitalism. That is, industry is controlled by the people who have capital who happen to be part of a highly corrupt state apparatus.
Wasn't that fascism under Hitler? Fascism under Hitler created a state‑directed, militarized, and coercive economy that preserved private ownership in name but subordinated all economic life to the goals of rearmament, autarky, and war. It was neither free‑market capitalism nor full socialism, but a command economy run through party control, state planning, and terror.
Doesn't seem much different.
The far left (communism) and the far right (facism) are the same. It's all about control.
Which is why we have to stand up to the threat of China and Russia and their economic cohorts in BRICS to protect western liberal democracy before it's too late.
Please don't misunderstand me - I appreciate that you in Oz, and those like @Huia in New Zealand, have very real concerns regarding China.
We Europeans have our own preoccupations at the moment, courtesy of Trump and Putin, but that doesn't mean we're not mindful of what's going on elsewhere in this (probably) doomed world of ours...
I understand. I know it's very stressful and unsettling.
But what I think the western liberal democratic nations are missing is the bigger threat of authoritarianism in Russia, China and their BRICS+
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Australia has also recently started a campaign to start manufacturing in Australia again. And we're thinking of putting tariffs on Chinese imports of steel to protect our own crumbling industry.
Please don't misunderstand me - I appreciate that you in Oz, and those like @Huia in New Zealand, have very real concerns regarding China.
Please don't misrepresent my views. I never stated that I have "very real concerns about China". I never mentioned China at all, however @Doublethink's comment about the difference between Chinese
and current American dominance resonates with me.
Please don't misunderstand me - I appreciate that you in Oz, and those like @Huia in New Zealand, have very real concerns regarding China.
Please don't misrepresent my views. I never stated that I have "very real concerns about China". I never mentioned China at all, however @Doublethink's comment about the difference between Chinese
and current American dominance resonates with me.
Edited: quotes tidied up. Dafyd Hell Host
Apologies for the error - I think I must have misinterpreted your earlier post. Point re dominance taken, though, and ISWYM.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that this happened in 2026 in reaction to the rise of a new power is proof positive of their commitment to democracy - in just the same way as the pardons for the Jan 6th coupists were.
I note that despite Trump's threats Starmer is trying to improve trade relations with China. The fact that Trump has been messing around with tariffs on EU and UK goods is clearly helping build closer relationships between the democracies of the world.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
How?
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely. It is built into the constitution in the 22nd Amendment.
Your country was founded on the concept of freedom from tyranny and monarchy. The founding fathers purposely decentralised power.
States control elections, Congress controls funding, lawmaking, impeachment, courts can block executive actions, military swears loyalty to the constitution, not the president.
All those instruments of democracy can also remove or heavily curtail the president if they act together. But if the republicans are still okay to support him (and all the other instruments of democracy are) you can't remove him. You have to wait to elect someone else.
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that this happened in 2026 in reaction to the rise of a new power is proof positive of their commitment to democracy - in just the same way as the pardons for the Jan 6th coupists were.
No you're right. It's not a commitment to democracy. It's a commitment to retaining the superiority it has had since the end of the Second World War which is now under threat.
But it happens to be a democracy. Better than the alternative for other western liberal democracies.
I note that despite Trump's threats Starmer is trying to improve trade relations with China. The fact that Trump has been messing around with tariffs on EU and UK goods is clearly helping build closer relationships between the democracies of the world.
Yeah. I think it's a power play by Starmer and the Canadian head too.
Thankfully, China has acquiesced to sanctions on previous British MP's sanctioning China for human rights abuses. Isn't that good of them.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
How?
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely. It is built into the constitution in the 22nd Amendment.
The worry at the moment is less changing the rules and more (1) having SCOTUS reinterpret them into meaninglessness and (2) ignoring them and daring anyone to do anything about it. Constitutions are only as strong as the rule-of-law culture that backs them. The Trump admin are already playing fast and loose with the first, second, fourth, fifth, tenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; why should the twenty-second (or indeed the twenty-fifth) be any more secure?
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that this happened in 2026 in reaction to the rise of a new power is proof positive of their commitment to democracy - in just the same way as the pardons for the Jan 6th coupists were.
No you're right. It's not a commitment to democracy. It's a commitment to retaining the superiority it has had since the end of the Second World War which is now under threat.
But it happens to be a democracy. Better than the alternative for other western liberal democracies.
That makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention. China isn't guaranteed to intervene to the level or treat Australia as badly as - say - Australia intervenes in/treats PNG.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
How?
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely.
Alas, this accurate self-awareness does not seem to deter you from pontificating on the subject.
Your country was founded on the concept of freedom from tyranny and monarchy. The founding fathers purposely decentralised power.
States control elections, Congress controls funding, lawmaking, impeachment, courts can block executive actions, military swears loyalty to the constitution, not the president.
All those instruments of democracy can also remove or heavily curtail the president if they act together. But if the republicans are still okay to support him (and all the other instruments of democracy are) you can't remove him. You have to wait to elect someone else.
It sounds like you might be suggesting a military coup there.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
(Emphasis added.)
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
How?
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely. It is built into the constitution in the 22nd Amendment.
The worry at the moment is less changing the rules and more (1) having SCOTUS reinterpret them into meaninglessness and (2) ignoring them and daring anyone to do anything about it. Constitutions are only as strong as the rule-of-law culture that backs them. The Trump admin are already playing fast and loose with the first, second, fourth, fifth, tenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; why should the twenty-second (or indeed the twenty-fifth) be any more secure?
Then presumably SCOTUS thinks Trump is doing a good job. Democracy sucks huh?
Congress can still impeach a Supreme Court Judge. As they can the President.
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that this happened in 2026 in reaction to the rise of a new power is proof positive of their commitment to democracy - in just the same way as the pardons for the Jan 6th coupists were.
No you're right. It's not a commitment to democracy. It's a commitment to retaining the superiority it has had since the end of the Second World War which is now under threat.
But it happens to be a democracy. Better than the alternative for other western liberal democracies.
That makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention. China isn't guaranteed to intervene to the level or treat Australia as badly as - say - Australia intervenes in/treats PNG.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you say "that makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention".
You don't think China is intervening in the global order and Australia badly?
It's about power. And it's about what kind of government you want that holds the strings of power over you.
If you're happy with a communist state to have power over you. What can I say.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
How?
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely.
Alas, this accurate self-awareness does not seem to deter you from pontificating on the subject.
Your country was founded on the concept of freedom from tyranny and monarchy. The founding fathers purposely decentralised power.
States control elections, Congress controls funding, lawmaking, impeachment, courts can block executive actions, military swears loyalty to the constitution, not the president.
All those instruments of democracy can also remove or heavily curtail the president if they act together. But if the republicans are still okay to support him (and all the other instruments of democracy are) you can't remove him. You have to wait to elect someone else.
It sounds like you might be suggesting a military coup there.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
(Emphasis added.)
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
Expertise is clearly not a requirement for pontificating on the Ship.
Congress is elected. They are supposed to listen to their electorates.
If you elected the wrong congress member, that's on you.
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
And, hopefully never returned to port again.
I disagree.
The old world order since ww2 has ceased to work for western liberal democracies.
It's time for change.
The US is spearheading it and I'm grateful, regardless of how poor a diplomat or how childish Trump and his ego is.
Other countries know this. They are following suit.
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that this happened in 2026 in reaction to the rise of a new power is proof positive of their commitment to democracy - in just the same way as the pardons for the Jan 6th coupists were.
No you're right. It's not a commitment to democracy. It's a commitment to retaining the superiority it has had since the end of the Second World War which is now under threat.
But it happens to be a democracy. Better than the alternative for other western liberal democracies.
That makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention. China isn't guaranteed to intervene to the level or treat Australia as badly as - say - Australia intervenes in/treats PNG.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you say "that makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention".
You don't think China is intervening in the global order and Australia badly?
All states intervene in international affairs; I see very little evidence to date that China's intervention is any more harmful to the global order than that of the US (and that was pre Trump).
The old world order since ww2 has ceased to work for western liberal democracies.
It's time for change.
The US is spearheading it and I'm grateful
Yeah, good luck with that, I suspect Carney - as hypocritical as his speech was - had a rather better understanding of the impact of these changes.
A small point of information @WhimsicalChristian. Yes, Congress can impeach a Supreme Court judge, but that does not mean the justice is removed. A justice can only be removed if the Senate votes to convict the justice of the charges listed in the impeachment. Think of impeachment as an indictment. After all Trump has been impeached twice and will likely be impeached again if the Democrats can take over the House, but the Senate has so far refused to convict him.
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
And, hopefully never returned to port again.
I disagree.
The old world order since ww2 has ceased to work for western liberal democracies.
This needs some serious unpacking. What do you mean by the "old world order"? In what way has it "ceased to work"? And, just as importantly, how is Trump a solution to the problem?
There are plenty of issues with neo-liberal capitalism, for example, but the key ones, that power and wealth are concentrated in too few hands, are ones that Trump is going to make worse.
If what you actually mean (and I hope it is not) that you want to wind the clock back to the white Australia policy and similar racist shite I would invite you to kindly GFY.
A small point of information @WhimsicalChristian. Yes, Congress can impeach a Supreme Court judge, but that does not mean the justice is removed. A justice can only be removed if the Senate votes to convict the justice of the charges listed in the impeachment.
As long as we’re being pedantic, “Congress” cannot impeach anyone. The power to impeach belongs only to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives ≠ Congress. The House of Representatives + the Senate = Congress.
@WhimsicalChristian: whether the US will continue to have free and fair elections is an open question. Trump and Co. will do their level best to make sure we don't, as they know how bad their current polling is. We're not like China or Russia yet, but we are no longer a full democracy.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
How?
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely.
Alas, this accurate self-awareness does not seem to deter you from pontificating on the subject.
Your country was founded on the concept of freedom from tyranny and monarchy. The founding fathers purposely decentralised power.
States control elections, Congress controls funding, lawmaking, impeachment, courts can block executive actions, military swears loyalty to the constitution, not the president.
All those instruments of democracy can also remove or heavily curtail the president if they act together. But if the republicans are still okay to support him (and all the other instruments of democracy are) you can't remove him. You have to wait to elect someone else.
It sounds like you might be suggesting a military coup there.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
(Emphasis added.)
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
Expertise is clearly not a requirement for pontificating on the Ship.
Indeed it is not. In my experience, pontification and superficial understanding (to use your description of yourself) often go hand in hand. Your posts in this thread are, for the most part, confirming that experience.
All states intervene in international affairs; I see very little evidence to date that China's intervention is any more harmful to the global order than that of the US (and that was pre Trump).
There are a few reasons for you seeing very little evidence of the threat of China:
1) The Chinese weild power via leverage economically. And who reads the business and economics news?
2) They've done this slowly and patiently over decades.
3) Trump is taking the headlines.
4) Economic and social deterioration (culture wars) elsewhere are taking the headlines.
But it's not hard to find if you're looking for it.
At the end of the day you just have to decide which country you would choose to have power over you.
A small point of information @WhimsicalChristian. Yes, Congress can impeach a Supreme Court judge, but that does not mean the justice is removed. A justice can only be removed if the Senate votes to convict the justice of the charges listed in the impeachment. Think of impeachment as an indictment. After all Trump has been impeached twice and will likely be impeached again if the Democrats can take over the House, but the Senate has so far refused to convict him.
Yes I understand.
I think my point was that if congress has a majority of votes to remove a president or judge they can. They have that power.
All states intervene in international affairs; I see very little evidence to date that China's intervention is any more harmful to the global order than that of the US (and that was pre Trump).
There are a few reasons for you seeing very little evidence of the threat of China:
1) The Chinese weild power via leverage economically. And who reads the business and economics news?
I read the business and economics news and see very little evidence to date that China's intervention is any more harmful to the global order than that of the US.
I see no data in anything you've said, just assertions.
A small point of information @WhimsicalChristian. Yes, Congress can impeach a Supreme Court judge, but that does not mean the justice is removed. A justice can only be removed if the Senate votes to convict the justice of the charges listed in the impeachment. Think of impeachment as an indictment. After all Trump has been impeached twice and will likely be impeached again if the Democrats can take over the House, but the Senate has so far refused to convict him.
Yes I understand.
I think my point was that if congress has a majority of votes to remove a president or judge they can. They have that power.
⅔ majority in the Senate to convict, which is a vital distinction.
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
And, hopefully never returned to port again.
I disagree.
The old world order since ww2 has ceased to work for western liberal democracies.
This needs some serious unpacking. What do you mean by the "old world order"? In what way has it "ceased to work"? And, just as importantly, how is Trump a solution to the problem?
There are plenty of issues with neo-liberal capitalism, for example, but the key ones, that power and wealth are concentrated in too few hands, are ones that Trump is going to make worse.
If what you actually mean (and I hope it is not) that you want to wind the clock back to the white Australia policy and similar racist shite I would invite you to kindly GFY.
Yes it does require some serious unpacking. I believe it is THE issue of our day.
The west became the dominant force in the world through technological and manufacturing innovation starting with the industrial revolution.
Post ww2 we started outsourcing manufacturing to nations with cheap labour. This saw the rise of the middle class globally and cheap goods for the west.
Now we find ourselves reliant on those countries that manufacture things for us. Covid showed us how easily supply chains could be disrupted.
For example, China has worked diligently to make us extremely dependent on its critical mineral resources and refinement. They have a virtual monopoly and are weaponising it. Which is why the EU, US, Australia and other countries have met TWICE in the last month to try break the stranglehold.
So this is about restarting manufacturing in our own countries and being less dependent on those that might weaponise economics like China.
Trump started that, Australia has followed suit. We now have a "Made in Australia" ad campaign going on etc. The EU is diversifying its market's from China etc.
There's a lot more to it but that's the beginning. Sorry I have to go now! More anon.
The west became the dominant force in the world through technological and manufacturing innovation starting with the industrial revolution.
Post ww2 we started outsourcing manufacturing to nations with cheap labour. This saw the rise of the middle class globally and cheap goods for the west.
Now we find ourselves reliant on those countries that manufacture things for us. Covid showed us how easily supply chains could be disrupted.
For example, China has worked diligently to make us extremely dependent on its critical mineral resources and refinement.
This was largely a case of outsourcing the production of raw materials to countries with cheaper labour - which historically hasn't been particularly great for those countries, the difference is that China had a big enough manufacturing sector to climb up the value chain.
They have a virtual monopoly and are weaponising it.
The restrictions on the export of rare earths were a reaction to Trump's tariffs (Contrary to the name rare earths are fairly common, extracting and refining them is a costly and low margin process with many environmental externalities and one which the 'west' has been hitherto happy to leave to China).
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
The west became the dominant force in the world through technological and manufacturing innovation starting with the industrial revolution.
Post ww2 we started outsourcing manufacturing to nations with cheap labour. This saw the rise of the middle class globally and cheap goods for the west.
Now we find ourselves reliant on those countries that manufacture things for us. Covid showed us how easily supply chains could be disrupted.
For example, China has worked diligently to make us extremely dependent on its critical mineral resources and refinement.
This was largely a case of outsourcing the production of raw materials to countries with cheaper labour - which historically hasn't been particularly great for those countries, the difference is that China had a big enough manufacturing sector to climb up the value chain.
They have a virtual monopoly and are weaponising it.
The restrictions on the export of rare earths were a reaction to Trump's tariffs (Contrary to the name rare earths are fairly common, extracting and refining them is a costly and low margin process with many environmental externalities and one which the 'west' has been hitherto happy to leave to China).
Historically, the west outsourcing its manufacturing has it been extremely good for those countries in terms of raising their poverty levels. They now have huge middle classes where they didn't before.
Re rare earth exports. Yes. China now controls 90% of refinement processes in the entire world and started regulating that with new laws starting 2020 that allowed them to restrict and delay. They planned to become the centre of critical minerals decades ago. I can send you a link if you like. I don't know how to do it here yet.
Australia tried to start refinement processes back in the day as prices rose due to Chinese restrictions but China then flooded the market with more and the companies collapsed as the price collapsed. They had everyone by the kehones.
The west is culpable for allowing the situation to get this dire and us so dependent on China for end technologies that use these minerals, including for defence.
The Chinese now wont sell to the US or Taiwan in the interest of "national security".
Yes the ante was upped when Trump imposed tariffs last year.
That's why the west is now looking to its own allies to break the stranglehold.
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Oh I'm so glad you requoted that Bishop's Finger. That's my in re the old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies and still is.
It isn't. It really isn't.
Globalisation (the old world order) was great for a while but now has led to economic stagnation, declining productivity, high dependency on volatile supply chains and unfriendly trade partners, shutting down local manufacturing left right and centre in the west. We've been going downhill for decades. Particularly Western Europe.
And you know what all that does? Wage stagnation for lower and middle income earners.
And you know what that does? Historically, it signalled the rise of facism during the depression between ww1 and ww2 in Europe as people were economically depressed.
The EU today has made a statement for "Made in Europe" with the backing of bigshots and tons of CEO's.
Re-instating manufacturing in local economies can revive this stagnation, and that's one of the things the Republican's under Trump are trying to do, and other nations are following suit.
Colonisation and slavery seem to be missing from that list @WhimsicalChristian
I didn't get to the full list. Immigration is another one related to globalisation but maybe that should be a separate thread. The problem is the low birth rate of western countries.
As for colonisation and slavery, it's not a western phenomenon. It has been practiced since time immemorial throughout history. Africans used to sell African slaves to other countries, the Middle East too, the Vikings etc etc.
I'm not clear why the west is being blamed for it when we, the British (oh yes I am British btw, I have dual citizenship. My parents are die hard English. Proud to be a Brit! ) stopped it and patrolled the seas at our own expense to make other countries stop it for ages.
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Globalisation (the old world order) was great for a while but now has led to economic stagnation, declining productivity, high dependency on volatile supply chains and unfriendly trade partners, shutting down local manufacturing left right and centre in the west. We've been going downhill for decades. Particularly Western Europe.
And you know what all that does? Wage stagnation for lower and middle income earners.
You're missing some important elements here: the 70s oil shock and the "in" it gave to destructive ideologies to erase decades of progress in trade union membership and the share of wealth going to wages rather than capital. Free market fetishisation in labour relations had a direct impact on wages over time. It wasn't that manufacturing was replaced with less productive industries, it's that the rewards of labour were sucked upwards by the destruction of working class power. Onshoring manufacturing (not that I expect Trump to achieve that) won't raise wages without strong unions.
I'm not clear why the west is being blamed for it when we,
Specifically because race based chattel slavery was a western invention.
My parents are die hard English. Proud to be a Brit! ) stopped it and patrolled the seas at our own expense to make other countries stop it for ages.
The West African Squadron is contemporaneous with the continuation of the use of slavery in Britain's Caribbean colonies, the 1807 Act was passed at a time when Britain's competitors still benefited from the trade, the 1833 Act was only passed once slavery had ceased to be profitable in the colonies.
The first country to abolish race based chattel slavery was Haiti.
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Oh I'm so glad you requoted that Bishop's Finger. That's my in re the old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies and still is.
It isn't. It really isn't.
<snip>
I was simply trying to say that I agreed with the view @Dafyd put forward.
I'm not quite sure what your second sentence means, but, of course, YMMV on this general issue. I appreciate that you speak from a different POV geographically!
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Globalisation (the old world order) was great for a while but now has led to economic stagnation, declining productivity, high dependency on volatile supply chains and unfriendly trade partners, shutting down local manufacturing left right and centre in the west. We've been going downhill for decades. Particularly Western Europe.
And you know what all that does? Wage stagnation for lower and middle income earners.
You're missing some important elements here: the 70s oil shock and the "in" it gave to destructive ideologies to erase decades of progress in trade union membership and the share of wealth going to wages rather than capital. Free market fetishisation in labour relations had a direct impact on wages over time. It wasn't that manufacturing was replaced with less productive industries, it's that the rewards of labour were sucked upwards by the destruction of working class power. Onshoring manufacturing (not that I expect Trump to achieve that) won't raise wages without strong unions.
Fair enough re onshore manufacturing returning and trade unions required for wage rises.
But it was globalisation that removed the power of trade unions by just shunting things offshore for cheaper labor. Trade unions were strongest in manufacturing and heavy industry. They lost their leverage when everything was just moved to China et al in those areas.
As for Trump, don't know if he'll achieve it but that's the goal and he's trying. He's made significant government concessions to new business starting up. He is a businessman after all.
I'm not clear why the west is being blamed for it when we,
Specifically because race based chattel slavery was a western invention.
My parents are die hard English. Proud to be a Brit! ) stopped it and patrolled the seas at our own expense to make other countries stop it for ages.
The West African Squadron is contemporaneous with the continuation of the use of slavery in Britain's Caribbean colonies, the 1807 Act was passed at a time when Britain's competitors still benefited from the trade, the 1833 Act was only passed once slavery had ceased to be profitable in the colonies.
The first country to abolish race based chattel slavery was Haiti.
I'm not clear on what you mean by race based chattel slavery?
Do you mean we're being singled out for just using one race for slavery? But it's okay if you use a different number of races for slavery?
That's weird.
Re slavery only being abolished when it had ceased to be profitable. Really? I understand the UK paid 40% of its annual budget to compensate slave owners when the law passed.
Would it really have been that much if they were worthless?
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Oh I'm so glad you requoted that Bishop's Finger. That's my in re the old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies and still is.
It isn't. It really isn't.
<snip>
I was simply trying to say that I agreed with the view @Dafyd put forward.
I'm not quite sure what your second sentence means, but, of course, YMMV on this general issue. I appreciate that you speak from a different POV geographically!
Do you mean we're being singled out for just using one race for slavery? But it's okay if you use a different number of races for slavery?
No, it's singled out because it created a class of human beings who were inherently regarded as property, it's the logic that starts with the doctrine of discovery and ends with the Zong.
Re slavery only being abolished when it had ceased to be profitable. Really? I understand the UK paid 40% of its annual budget to compensate slave owners when the law passed.
Would it really have been that much if they were worthless?
This is one of those 'hide the ball under the cup' tricks beloved of apologists for colonialism. Yes, it had ceased to be profitable. That has very little bearing on the governing classes choosing to compensate themselves for the loss of their "property" from the coffers of the state (in most cases they were able to continue to exploit those individuals as labour while divesting themselves of the cost of care).
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Globalisation (the old world order) was great for a while but now has led to economic stagnation, declining productivity, high dependency on volatile supply chains and unfriendly trade partners, shutting down local manufacturing left right and centre in the west. We've been going downhill for decades. Particularly Western Europe.
And you know what all that does? Wage stagnation for lower and middle income earners.
You're missing some important elements here: the 70s oil shock and the "in" it gave to destructive ideologies to erase decades of progress in trade union membership and the share of wealth going to wages rather than capital. Free market fetishisation in labour relations had a direct impact on wages over time. It wasn't that manufacturing was replaced with less productive industries, it's that the rewards of labour were sucked upwards by the destruction of working class power. Onshoring manufacturing (not that I expect Trump to achieve that) won't raise wages without strong unions.
Fair enough re onshore manufacturing returning and trade unions required for wage rises.
But it was globalisation that removed the power of trade unions by just shunting things offshore for cheaper labor. Trade unions were strongest in manufacturing and heavy industry.
The attacks on the power of trade unions which started in the 70s predates the era of globalisation of trade and manufacturing.
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Globalisation (the old world order) was great for a while but now has led to economic stagnation, declining productivity, high dependency on volatile supply chains and unfriendly trade partners, shutting down local manufacturing left right and centre in the west. We've been going downhill for decades. Particularly Western Europe.
And you know what all that does? Wage stagnation for lower and middle income earners.
You're missing some important elements here: the 70s oil shock and the "in" it gave to destructive ideologies to erase decades of progress in trade union membership and the share of wealth going to wages rather than capital. Free market fetishisation in labour relations had a direct impact on wages over time. It wasn't that manufacturing was replaced with less productive industries, it's that the rewards of labour were sucked upwards by the destruction of working class power. Onshoring manufacturing (not that I expect Trump to achieve that) won't raise wages without strong unions.
Fair enough re onshore manufacturing returning and trade unions required for wage rises.
But it was globalisation that removed the power of trade unions by just shunting things offshore for cheaper labor. Trade unions were strongest in manufacturing and heavy industry.
The attacks on the power of trade unions which started in the 70s predates the era of globalisation of trade and manufacturing.
Exactly. Thatcher, Reagan, et al smashed working class power to allow globalisation, not the other way around.
The world is on average a lot richer than it was before globalisation, and the people of liberal democracies are on average a lot richer. The problem is that developed countries are a lot more unequal so that most of that growth in wealth has gone to rich people in developed nations.
Even on the most favourable reading of Trump's actions, your argument amounts to the politician's fallacy:
Something needs to be done.
Trump is doing something.
Therefore, Trump is doing what needs to be done.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, there is a good deal of reason to believe that whatever the something is that needs to be done, it is not what Trump is doing. Tariffs, and further tax cuts for the wealthy, are not going to solve any problems.
It's been pointed out that even if tariffs would work if properly implemented what Trump is doing is not properly implementing them. Tariffs will only have the effect of motivating companies to move manufacturing to the US if manufacturers believe they're likely to be part of a permanent status quo. But Trump keeps threatening to raise and lower tariffs as a way to try to bully or reward countries into making deals he likes. That means manufacturers cannot be sure that moving manufacturing into the US will be worth the investment required to do so. And there are few signs that they are making the investment.
China has been building soft power and economic influence for years. There have been alarmist think pieces about this since the nineties.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
This.
Oh I'm so glad you requoted that Bishop's Finger. That's my in re the old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies and still is.
It isn't. It really isn't.
<snip>
I was simply trying to say that I agreed with the view @Dafyd put forward.
I'm not quite sure what your second sentence means, but, of course, YMMV on this general issue. I appreciate that you speak from a different POV geographically!
Comments
The immunity to criminal prosecution is but a tiny part of the significant checks and balances of the democratic system including impeachment, control of funding through congress ( and declarations of war) senate approvals, the judicial system, etc etc.
Oh and you can vote a president out after 4 years if all of the above doesn't work. In China? No longer the case and it's not an election from the people, it's from the communist party.
If the USA, as a whole, wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, they could do it.
SIGNIFICANT economic interests, particularly in the high end semi conductor game (which controls so much of our new technology) makes it a near certainty.
It's all about the economy, stupid ( so someone famous once said).
The EU and US have started producing their own, but I imagine we are nowhere near the capacity we need as we only started recently, because of the threat.
The far left (communism) and the far right (facism) are the same. It's all about control.
Which is why we have to stand up to the threat of China and Russia and their economic cohorts in BRICS to protect western liberal democracy before it's too late.
I understand. I know it's very stressful and unsettling.
But what I think the western liberal democratic nations are missing is the bigger threat of authoritarianism in Russia, China and their BRICS+
At the very least, Trump's foreign policy on pushing back on this threat in geo politics and trying to start manufacturing their own goods again so they are not dependent on these other nations that do not share their democratic values is a good thing.
Australia has also recently started a campaign to start manufacturing in Australia again. And we're thinking of putting tariffs on Chinese imports of steel to protect our own crumbling industry.
And we're a very left wing government.
Please don't misrepresent my views. I never stated that I have "very real concerns about China". I never mentioned China at all, however @Doublethink's comment about the difference between Chinese
and current American dominance resonates with me.
Edited: quotes tidied up. Dafyd Hell Host
Apologies for the error - I think I must have misinterpreted your earlier post. Point re dominance taken, though, and ISWYM.
How?
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that this happened in 2026 in reaction to the rise of a new power is proof positive of their commitment to democracy - in just the same way as the pardons for the Jan 6th coupists were.
Alas Ruth, I'm not an expert on your constitution. But my superficial understanding is it would be almost impossible to change the rules to allow one president to remain indefinitely. It is built into the constitution in the 22nd Amendment.
Your country was founded on the concept of freedom from tyranny and monarchy. The founding fathers purposely decentralised power.
States control elections, Congress controls funding, lawmaking, impeachment, courts can block executive actions, military swears loyalty to the constitution, not the president.
All those instruments of democracy can also remove or heavily curtail the president if they act together. But if the republicans are still okay to support him (and all the other instruments of democracy are) you can't remove him. You have to wait to elect someone else.
No you're right. It's not a commitment to democracy. It's a commitment to retaining the superiority it has had since the end of the Second World War which is now under threat.
But it happens to be a democracy. Better than the alternative for other western liberal democracies.
Yeah. I think it's a power play by Starmer and the Canadian head too.
Thankfully, China has acquiesced to sanctions on previous British MP's sanctioning China for human rights abuses. Isn't that good of them.
The worry at the moment is less changing the rules and more (1) having SCOTUS reinterpret them into meaninglessness and (2) ignoring them and daring anyone to do anything about it. Constitutions are only as strong as the rule-of-law culture that backs them. The Trump admin are already playing fast and loose with the first, second, fourth, fifth, tenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; why should the twenty-second (or indeed the twenty-fifth) be any more secure?
That makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention. China isn't guaranteed to intervene to the level or treat Australia as badly as - say - Australia intervenes in/treats PNG.
It sounds like you might be suggesting a military coup there.
What you said, and what @Ruth responded to, was: (Emphasis added.)
If the United States Congress as a whole wanted Trump out or significantly stymied, it could do it. The US as a whole, not so much, except at the ballot box. And that ship has sailed.
And, hopefully never returned to port again.
Then presumably SCOTUS thinks Trump is doing a good job. Democracy sucks huh?
Congress can still impeach a Supreme Court Judge. As they can the President.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you say "that makes a heavy presumption on the level of intervention".
You don't think China is intervening in the global order and Australia badly?
It's about power. And it's about what kind of government you want that holds the strings of power over you.
If you're happy with a communist state to have power over you. What can I say.
Expertise is clearly not a requirement for pontificating on the Ship.
Congress is elected. They are supposed to listen to their electorates.
If you elected the wrong congress member, that's on you.
I disagree.
The old world order since ww2 has ceased to work for western liberal democracies.
It's time for change.
The US is spearheading it and I'm grateful, regardless of how poor a diplomat or how childish Trump and his ego is.
Other countries know this. They are following suit.
All states intervene in international affairs; I see very little evidence to date that China's intervention is any more harmful to the global order than that of the US (and that was pre Trump).
Yeah, good luck with that, I suspect Carney - as hypocritical as his speech was - had a rather better understanding of the impact of these changes.
From Psalm 46:
9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
This needs some serious unpacking. What do you mean by the "old world order"? In what way has it "ceased to work"? And, just as importantly, how is Trump a solution to the problem?
There are plenty of issues with neo-liberal capitalism, for example, but the key ones, that power and wealth are concentrated in too few hands, are ones that Trump is going to make worse.
If what you actually mean (and I hope it is not) that you want to wind the clock back to the white Australia policy and similar racist shite I would invite you to kindly GFY.
Indeed it is not. In my experience, pontification and superficial understanding (to use your description of yourself) often go hand in hand. Your posts in this thread are, for the most part, confirming that experience.
There are a few reasons for you seeing very little evidence of the threat of China:
1) The Chinese weild power via leverage economically. And who reads the business and economics news?
2) They've done this slowly and patiently over decades.
3) Trump is taking the headlines.
4) Economic and social deterioration (culture wars) elsewhere are taking the headlines.
But it's not hard to find if you're looking for it.
At the end of the day you just have to decide which country you would choose to have power over you.
Yes I understand.
I think my point was that if congress has a majority of votes to remove a president or judge they can. They have that power.
I read the business and economics news and see very little evidence to date that China's intervention is any more harmful to the global order than that of the US.
I see no data in anything you've said, just assertions.
⅔ majority in the Senate to convict, which is a vital distinction.
The question is whether what Trump is doing is going to do anything to change that. The answer is no: he is abandoning US soft power and is signalling that US economic cooperation is unreliable and one-sided.
For countries where the choice is between the US and China, Trump is making China the better bet. If his tariff policy was there to support liberal democracy - hah - he wouldn't be imposing tariffs on liberal democracies.
The old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies. It still is. It's in the interests of China and Russia to undermine it. That's what Russia has been doing. If one really cared about a world order that favoured liberal democracy one would act to shore the old order up. That means more respect for the rules by the US, not less. Trump is indeed helping bring down the old order. That's not good for liberal democracy.
Yes it does require some serious unpacking. I believe it is THE issue of our day.
The west became the dominant force in the world through technological and manufacturing innovation starting with the industrial revolution.
Post ww2 we started outsourcing manufacturing to nations with cheap labour. This saw the rise of the middle class globally and cheap goods for the west.
Now we find ourselves reliant on those countries that manufacture things for us. Covid showed us how easily supply chains could be disrupted.
For example, China has worked diligently to make us extremely dependent on its critical mineral resources and refinement. They have a virtual monopoly and are weaponising it. Which is why the EU, US, Australia and other countries have met TWICE in the last month to try break the stranglehold.
So this is about restarting manufacturing in our own countries and being less dependent on those that might weaponise economics like China.
Trump started that, Australia has followed suit. We now have a "Made in Australia" ad campaign going on etc. The EU is diversifying its market's from China etc.
There's a lot more to it but that's the beginning. Sorry I have to go now! More anon.
This was largely a case of outsourcing the production of raw materials to countries with cheaper labour - which historically hasn't been particularly great for those countries, the difference is that China had a big enough manufacturing sector to climb up the value chain.
The restrictions on the export of rare earths were a reaction to Trump's tariffs (Contrary to the name rare earths are fairly common, extracting and refining them is a costly and low margin process with many environmental externalities and one which the 'west' has been hitherto happy to leave to China).
This.
Historically, the west outsourcing its manufacturing has it been extremely good for those countries in terms of raising their poverty levels. They now have huge middle classes where they didn't before.
Re rare earth exports. Yes. China now controls 90% of refinement processes in the entire world and started regulating that with new laws starting 2020 that allowed them to restrict and delay. They planned to become the centre of critical minerals decades ago. I can send you a link if you like. I don't know how to do it here yet.
Australia tried to start refinement processes back in the day as prices rose due to Chinese restrictions but China then flooded the market with more and the companies collapsed as the price collapsed. They had everyone by the kehones.
The west is culpable for allowing the situation to get this dire and us so dependent on China for end technologies that use these minerals, including for defence.
The Chinese now wont sell to the US or Taiwan in the interest of "national security".
Yes the ante was upped when Trump imposed tariffs last year.
That's why the west is now looking to its own allies to break the stranglehold.
Oh I'm so glad you requoted that Bishop's Finger. That's my in re the old world order was working nicely for liberal democracies and still is.
It isn't. It really isn't.
Globalisation (the old world order) was great for a while but now has led to economic stagnation, declining productivity, high dependency on volatile supply chains and unfriendly trade partners, shutting down local manufacturing left right and centre in the west. We've been going downhill for decades. Particularly Western Europe.
And you know what all that does? Wage stagnation for lower and middle income earners.
And you know what that does? Historically, it signalled the rise of facism during the depression between ww1 and ww2 in Europe as people were economically depressed.
The EU today has made a statement for "Made in Europe" with the backing of bigshots and tons of CEO's.
Re-instating manufacturing in local economies can revive this stagnation, and that's one of the things the Republican's under Trump are trying to do, and other nations are following suit.
I didn't get to the full list. Immigration is another one related to globalisation but maybe that should be a separate thread. The problem is the low birth rate of western countries.
As for colonisation and slavery, it's not a western phenomenon. It has been practiced since time immemorial throughout history. Africans used to sell African slaves to other countries, the Middle East too, the Vikings etc etc.
I'm not clear why the west is being blamed for it when we, the British (oh yes I am British btw, I have dual citizenship. My parents are die hard English. Proud to be a Brit! ) stopped it and patrolled the seas at our own expense to make other countries stop it for ages.
Kudos to christian Wilberforce.
Where's the I'm not worthy emoticon.
You're missing some important elements here: the 70s oil shock and the "in" it gave to destructive ideologies to erase decades of progress in trade union membership and the share of wealth going to wages rather than capital. Free market fetishisation in labour relations had a direct impact on wages over time. It wasn't that manufacturing was replaced with less productive industries, it's that the rewards of labour were sucked upwards by the destruction of working class power. Onshoring manufacturing (not that I expect Trump to achieve that) won't raise wages without strong unions.
Specifically because race based chattel slavery was a western invention.
The West African Squadron is contemporaneous with the continuation of the use of slavery in Britain's Caribbean colonies, the 1807 Act was passed at a time when Britain's competitors still benefited from the trade, the 1833 Act was only passed once slavery had ceased to be profitable in the colonies.
The first country to abolish race based chattel slavery was Haiti.
I was simply trying to say that I agreed with the view @Dafyd put forward.
I'm not quite sure what your second sentence means, but, of course, YMMV on this general issue. I appreciate that you speak from a different POV geographically!
Fair enough re onshore manufacturing returning and trade unions required for wage rises.
But it was globalisation that removed the power of trade unions by just shunting things offshore for cheaper labor. Trade unions were strongest in manufacturing and heavy industry. They lost their leverage when everything was just moved to China et al in those areas.
As for Trump, don't know if he'll achieve it but that's the goal and he's trying. He's made significant government concessions to new business starting up. He is a businessman after all.
I'm not clear on what you mean by race based chattel slavery?
Do you mean we're being singled out for just using one race for slavery? But it's okay if you use a different number of races for slavery?
That's weird.
Re slavery only being abolished when it had ceased to be profitable. Really? I understand the UK paid 40% of its annual budget to compensate slave owners when the law passed.
Would it really have been that much if they were worthless?
You went hard then you demured.
I get it. It's hard being a christian.
No, it's singled out because it created a class of human beings who were inherently regarded as property, it's the logic that starts with the doctrine of discovery and ends with the Zong.
This is one of those 'hide the ball under the cup' tricks beloved of apologists for colonialism. Yes, it had ceased to be profitable. That has very little bearing on the governing classes choosing to compensate themselves for the loss of their "property" from the coffers of the state (in most cases they were able to continue to exploit those individuals as labour while divesting themselves of the cost of care).
The attacks on the power of trade unions which started in the 70s predates the era of globalisation of trade and manufacturing.
Exactly. Thatcher, Reagan, et al smashed working class power to allow globalisation, not the other way around.
Even on the most favourable reading of Trump's actions, your argument amounts to the politician's fallacy:
Something needs to be done.
Trump is doing something.
Therefore, Trump is doing what needs to be done.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, there is a good deal of reason to believe that whatever the something is that needs to be done, it is not what Trump is doing. Tariffs, and further tax cuts for the wealthy, are not going to solve any problems.
It's been pointed out that even if tariffs would work if properly implemented what Trump is doing is not properly implementing them. Tariffs will only have the effect of motivating companies to move manufacturing to the US if manufacturers believe they're likely to be part of a permanent status quo. But Trump keeps threatening to raise and lower tariffs as a way to try to bully or reward countries into making deals he likes. That means manufacturers cannot be sure that moving manufacturing into the US will be worth the investment required to do so. And there are few signs that they are making the investment.
Please don't get personal.