Friends, you could be forgiven for feeling a sense of whiplash as you survey the progress of Trumpian America's "trade war" with...the rest of the world. Those giant reciprocal tariffs we were promised have been withdrawn almost as soon as they were created. Theoretically, they've been paused for 90 days so that all those countries that came hat in hand and "kissed" Trump's "ass" can complete the process of ass-kissing and agree to better trade terms than they've ever given us before. If they don't cooperate, then those reciprocal tariffs might reappear down the line. In the meantime, China, which showed particular cheek in retaliating against our tariffs, has been named persona non grata and hit with a stupefying 125% tariff! Will it last mere minutes or hours, or will we go the distance and freeze China out of the U.S. market on a permanent basis? No one knows the answers, or even Trump's true intentions. The market, in any case, has responded very favorably to the "pause" on most reciprocal tariffs. Think about that, though. Trump has created a scenario in which all countries must pay a 10% tariff, and trade with China is about to grind to a halt, and the world is actually relieved!!! In fact, the capitalist elite is positively giddy about it. Only Trump could pull this off. We should add, of course, that we're not out of the woods yet, and there remain innumerable uncertainties about the trading picture going forward. Not least among these uncertainties is our relationship with China, which is as dicey as its been in ages. But if Trump's goal was to get the world's attention, and make the markets march to his tune, then it's fair to say: mission accomplished! What's next??? I'm waiting with bated breath to find out...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y66qe404po
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteThis is the end of Chinese take out as we know it. Easy on that soy sauce.
Ha! Most Chinese takeout relies on domestically sourced cats, as I understand it, so our supply of Kung Pao "Chicken" might yet be safe...
ReplyDeleteRAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteOkay, fine. But at least, jazz up that pu pu platter.
Dr. Waddy and Ray et al from Jack : Yeeech! Anyway. . .
ReplyDeleteA commentator on Fox today noted that the Chinese economy will be sorely effected by this standoff and that that may generate serious political and social problems for their administration. Our wheeler dealer President is no doubt fully apprised of such a possibility. Through all of the hurly burly going on now, both domestically and internationally, I trust DJT and am confident he knows what he is doing. I do not by that think that he can be sure of what is going to happen but I think his course is well conceived.I really like his assertiveness and am glad for the way it discombobulates the America hating far left. I hope he drives it to the distraction and self destruction it so richly deserves for its now 60 year onslaught on our civilization.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I saw a commentator on MSNBC lamenting the fact that though , "yesss," it may well generate the building of lots of new massively good job generating investment, STILL, the tariff campaign benefits the rich and is therefore anathema.
ReplyDeleteIt reminded me of the benefit we receive from having the history of the appalling 20th century available to us now if we will but pay it heed. Perhaps what it proves beyond doubt by any of good will is that marxism's murderous condemnation of wealth in any measure has proven in power to manifest incalculable suffering. Just ask , if we could , prudent and productive Ukrainian farmers of the "30s about their winter stores of food stolen by Red Army thugs sent by luxury loving Stalin because he considered such "wealth" to be unjust. Ask them about the sight of butchered torsos of children openly displayed for sale as food. I've seen pictures of that HORROR.
To the neomarxist "American" left ANY accumulation of material well being generated by any doctrine other than their completely discredited screed is by definition oppressive and remediable only by "struggle". Even for those relatively few radicals who actually think, rather than reflexively reacting , this is more than enough to move them to hyperbolic "resistance. And for those of means who foolishly seek to buy the mercy of these prospective Commissars and torturers , the tumbrels will certainly roll for them too should the America haters ever prevail!
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteAll this "political theater" kind of reminds me of John Foster Dulles and his "brinkmanship" approach to international affairs back in the 1950s.
Ray from Jack: I've got to do more reading on that time.I know next to nothing about Dulles or why Ike picked him. I lived through the news of it but of course without any comprehension save for the Hungarian uprising,about which we were told much even in 4th grade.
ReplyDeleteIt really was a grimly fascinating time.After the cataclysm of WWII they of course saw it vital to apply the lessons they perceived they had learned at the hands of the Axis. But then Stalin gave them no breathing room. How terrible it must have been to so quickly realize yet another totalitarian regime, ruled by a monster equal in inhumanity to Hitler and Japanese Generals , was close at hand and a truly harrowing threat. Sole possession of the bomb gave the West a temporary reprieve but Stalin and Mao ended that with dispatch. Had Stalin not met his deservedly horrid end, there might have been a showdown in the mid '50s(?).
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteJohn F. Dulles had a brother, Allen, who ran the CIA around the same time he (John) was Secretary of State for Eisenhower. All kinds of conspiracy theories surrounding the two of them.
But you know, conspiracies do exist, and it seems the more power brokers deny them, the more I'm convinced they do exist. That's my opinion.
I also believe that no matter how "transparent" governments (left or right) appear to be, the less they really are. In other words, the real decisions are made at meetings closed to the public and the media. I realize that's a cynical opinion, but I would label it as reality.
As for China (as we know it today), they could have been ("cleaned up") during The Korea War, and MacArthur wanted to do it, and could have done it, but was stopped from doing so by Truman, who disliked MacArthur personally. The power of the PRC could also have been arrested if Nixon and Henry Kissinger, and later Carter had not recognized it in the 1970s. Their decisions have come home to roost, and we are paying for it now, no matter what Trump does or does not do.
Finally, even PRC China has some legitimate historical complaints, which are a byproduct of American racism, plain and simple. Check out the two "Chinese Exclusion Acts, formalized by our Congress in the late 19th Century, and again in the 1920s, as I recall. Research them yourself, and draw you own conclusions.
In any event, China's quest to become a world power is certainly normal, as far as world history goes for thousands of years. Countries want to be world powers if they can be. The U.S. certainly began this program with The Spanish-American war. On that note, look up a Marine General, Smedley D. Butler, two time Medal of Honor Winner,
(hardly a slouch, Ha!), who wrote a book on this "War Is A Racket".
I could go on, but my point is: that more often than not, countries are their own worst enemies when they take actions or don't take actions, or make stupid decisions.
Also, check out R.J. Rummel, whose monumental work "Death by Government" should explain a lot.
On the use of the word "monster" in describing Hitler and Stalin, people are not monsters, but just plain evil people! Think about it! What are monsters? Japanese "Monster Movies" come to mind. I'm not taking you to task for using the word, but people are NOT monsters. As for Stalin, he was another Ivan The Terrible, but hardly a monster. He was an evil man, but his head of the NKVD, Beria, was even more evil, if you think about it.
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteThe general tendency is to blame the beatniks of the 1950s and the hippies of the 1960s, and the counter-cultures which they produced, of much more than they were ever capable of. I'm guilty of that view, but the fact of the matter is that those unwashed drug addicts never made any political decisions, or anything even close of it. LBJ getting us into Vietnam was not affected by how much LSD some moron took or didn't take. It certainly didn't affect the disastrous decisions made by Jimmy Carter, especially his handling of the Iran hostage situation, or the axe murders of two U.S. Army officers by North Koreans. (Both have come home to roost today).
And "sacred" cows aside, we are know paying for decisions Reagan made in Central America during the 1980s. Remember the Iran-Contra Scandal. How many gangs were produced by Ron's (aided and abetted by Colonel North) decision to arm a bunch of already violent bunch of peasants to shoot other violent peasants. And here we are today with the legacy of those gangs who finally decided to invade the country who produced them.
Again, countries create their own problems by the decisions political leaders (and other power brokers) make. Then propaganda makes it look like "Our shit doesn't stink, but the other guy's does."
Think about this!!
Ray from Jack: Very much of substance to comment upon in your expressions above. You and I and, I hope, some of the other readers of this site, being of an age , share a similar point of view though not necessarily the same conclusions. Its one of the benefits of old age, I think, to be able to look back so far with such consequently informed perspective. I always thought current events could not compare with history for drama but those events we lived through are fascinating to recall now and for many, they are history.
ReplyDeleteLast things first: I agree: LBJ was of the generation understandably informed by WWII and credited always for their endurance of it and the Depression. Nothing in LBJ's hard baked makeup could have persuaded him to credit the pissant Aquarians.
The problem for him inhered only and simply in the gargantuan size of the baby boom generation and their Greatest Generation gifted access to the American academy and its cynical cadre of far leftist faculty who had had to lay low during the correctly commie hating '50s. Certainly the WWII vets going to university on the G.I. Bill, would have none of their totalitarian dreck. They had seen the unspeakable remains of totalitarian inhumanity first hand in ruins sickeningly redolent of death. But these irredeemable Marxists saw in the multitudinous children of the Greatest Generation raw meat, naifs whose fortuitous upbringing in the '50s denied them the wisdom their parents gained from their terrible travail. And the weight of their easily compromised numbers were a key factor in the putative "anti war" ,actually anti American , pro commie neo Nazi North Vietnamese, yes, WAR effort to force their inhuman rule on all of Vietnam and potentially all of S.E. Asia, including the vital Straits of Malacca. Against this dead weight , LBJ had to yield in 1968. He had but four years to live. BTW, he had seen and comprehended destitution as a teacher in rural Texas in the '30s. He WAS a compassionate man.
Ray from Jack: More later. . .
ReplyDeleteRay from Jack: Good point about us arming the guerrilla in Central America and now having to fight them. Similar thing happened in Afghanistan. Isolationism is looking better and better what with this and Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteI think that we have TENDED over our history to stand up to the bad guys and be "the flag that sets you free". Eg. How many in the states which used to be part of Mexico would want to return to Mexican misrule and poverty?
China, which is deservedly proud of its long lived civilization, was humiliated by the West and Japan from 1820 to about 1949. Perhaps extraterritoriality helped China to keep Russia at bay but it was bitterly resented by a China much beleagured by natural disasters and the death throes of a 2000 year old Imperial tradition. At times , eg. in the glorious Tang Dynasty (which was much admired and imitated by the Japanese), of the approximate 6th to 9th centuries, it had arguably the world's highest civilization. Joseph Needham, a celebrated scholar of Chinese technology, said China was the technological equal of Western Europe until the 17th century. ( I took Chinese history from Needham's research assistant , Dr. Ray Huang). The Opium Wars fought in the 1800s by the Brits to force the cataclysmic curse of opium on China and wrest "treaty ports" are a terribly dark mark on Perfidious Albion. The Chinese have not for a moment forgotten that and many other presumptuous impositions forced on China by foreigners when it was suffering.
China is acutely aware of its history(which includes several episodes of dissemblance from which they emerged strong again) and I think the essential intent of its foreign policy now is to assure their security from the hellish advantage taken of them by the West and Japan in the 19th and 20th century.
I think China's rise from weakness, destitution and Maoist madness is one of the most redeeming events of modern times. But more and more we MUST try to discern just what China considers "security" and I sincerely hope DJT is getting very well informed advice from those who know China. Could it be no less than world domination? As much as I Iike the Chinese (whose culture I lived in for several months in dominantly Chinese Singapore) and revere them for their almost incomparable work ethic, I am glad to see us confronting them over trade. If we will, we can learn much from this about their current perception of their relative power. The Chinese tend to take a very long view of their history and their future. They may back off a notch in this current conflict but I think only as a tactical retreat.
RAY TO JACK
DeleteMy main point (which I think you missed or misunderstood), is that every country in the world that is able to wants to have an empire. China is certainly no exception. This is past, present and future.
With that said, I question the benefits of any country's empire.
Do the research yourself, with reference to European Empires for starters: Portugal (who took advantage of the slave trade originated by The Muslim Arabs), Spain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain. How did those empires benefit the peoples they took over? Certainly, all were acquired by military force, with people getting killed in the bargain, and then what? The U.S. was part of that empire building process, beginning in the late 19th Century. So what's next? More bloody bullshit in the future, because some fucking country wants to build their empire? Take it from there Jack, and you decide if the Dutch were justified taking over what became The Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), for spices, so some fat-assed businessman in Amsterdam could have nutmeg on his custard. Go figure!
Ray from Jack: Yeah, I can't see any benefit having accrued to the Dutch East Indies from investment by those red faced burghers. How they endured that climate is hard to imagine.
ReplyDeleteBut India was saved from being enslaved by Russia and was able to establish a creditable democracy by its Brit "stewardship". A recent Indian PM or President said" its time we acknowledge that we did benefit from British rule". Alot of Brits died defending India from the benevolent Japanese (who would no doubt have summarily dispatched the Mahatma).
But Spain, Portugal and Belgium: they were cruel masters and of course the Germkans, Japanese and Soviets treated their imperial subjects with inhumanity.
I think on balance we did right by the Philippines. Had they been independent immediately after the Spanish left they would have been summarily scooped up by the Japanese and have endured decades of their intolerant sway.
But clearly, the time for traditional empires is over. Civilization has advanced beyond it, as Ike asserted during the Suez crisis. I do think China resolutely determined to guarantee its security from exploitation after its 1820 -1949 humiliation and consequent Maoist madness.But perhaps they do see that security as requiring the projection of their power in some form throughout the world. It may be making them more aggressive than we can countenance and I'm glad for the challenge DJT is raising to them. (And I understand from my Chinese studies Profs that China is determined to reacquire any territory they think was once part of China , eg. Taiwan ).
Ray from Jack: And of course though, I should acknowledge that alot of Indians died defending the British Empire and India.
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
DeleteThe Raj was a real fun place to be wasn't it? "Dando at Delhi Ridge" and all that shit! Better yet, the adventures of young Winston in SwamiLand. After all is said and done, those British Indian Army uniforms were really snappy. Too bad about those three Afghan Wars the Brits lost.
RAY TO JACK
DeleteAll my sarcasm aside, you are correct in assuming that "the time for traditional empires is over."
All the U.S. can ever do anywhere in the world is defuse situations that could lead to bigger wars.
On that note, I still say we should "depopulate" Gaza and use that area for a joint U.S.-Israel military complex. It will provide a target for the enemy of course, but at least we will be showing the flag in a very strategic location, which will also facilitate moving a lot of our forces from Europe to Gaza.
With that said, I rather doubt such a plan for Gaza is ever going to happen, but it's worth thinking about.
Does Trump "know what he's doing" in our nascent trade war with China? I hope so, but we are in uncharted territory, and I think we need to be realistic about our vulnerabilities, which are considerable!
ReplyDeleteRay, good point about brinksmanship. We rolled the dice an awful lot back in those days, although a strong argument can be made that we had a massive nuclear superiority under Eisenhower, so we could strut with some confidence. This begs the question: if the U.S. and China "took the gloves off", even commercially and financially, who would suffer more, and how? Perhaps we'll soon find out.
Ray, you may be right that China would have fallen on its sword, had we not thrown it a lifeline in the 70s. We'll never know, but that would have been an interesting alternate version of history... And I agree that dictators aren't "monsters", and in some ways we do ourselves a disservice when we dehumanize them. It's easy to dismiss monsters, but the truth is that evil is perpetrated by men, and usually by men for who resemble us "normies" more than we like to think.
Yes, "empires" are often more trouble than they're worth, but, if China does stitch together a modern empire, it won't be the kind that Spain and Portugal ruled centuries ago. It will be a more informal, and fundamentally commercial, "empire". It might be all the more valuable for that.
Just my two cents: confronting China is all well and good, but wasn't it Napoleon who advised the West to let China "sleep"? Poking the dragon, as it were, could cause China to become much MORE aggressive, even militarily, and we have to think seriously about how (or if) we would respond.
DFr. Wady and Ray et al from Jack: The sociology of the traditional Brit army fascinates me. Have you seen the movie The Hill with Sean Connery and Harry Andrews? Its an interesting view of Brit military discipline .
ReplyDeleteI spent 20 years working in the midst of a prison population containing many sociopaths including an amiable guy who literally butchered his family. Most people would be tortured to mental and emotional extremity and plagued by all manner of physical ailments if they had done the evil some sociopaths do.
But to do what mass murders and enslavers have done?! Perhaps their immunity to the torments of conscience is as radical a departure from normal humanity as to merit for them designation as a different breed deserving the name of monster. Hitler, Stalin and Saddam were all said to enjoy depictions of almost unthinkable cruelty: eg. Hitler's much repeated personal audience of film of the hideous executions of the conspirators in his bombing. Some people are as much different from humans as, say, the racoons I have seen eating a live duck.
ehhh, Dr. Waddy that is in my salutation above. Jack
ReplyDeleteYour reference to Hitler taking pleasure in watching film of the executions of the July 20th plotters intrigued me, since it contradicts the image I have of Hitler as a man who was fundamentally squeamish about death and suffering. This article casts doubt on whether the claims you cite are true:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/7146/Execution-of-the-conspirators-of-July-20-1944.htm
Of course, some men ARE sadists, but I still question whether that makes them "monsters". Sadism exists on a spectrum, after all, and, as Hitler may prove, one can do beastly things, or facilitate beastly things, without necessarily taking pleasure in the physical act of killing.