• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    It’s a move to spur domestic manufacturing and move the US to Autarky — straight out of Hitler’s playbook; albeit an incompetent attempt because he’s a mentally challenged degenerate.

    Autarky isn’t bad — covid highlighted the weaknesses that capitalism and globalism created for every economy — but Trumps goals are not risk mitigation or “national security”, and he certainly intends for it to enable imperialist wars and conquests. The fact is the allies won WW2 largely because of US manufacturing capacity (Europes was destroyed). China could take Taiwan tomorrow and the world would have to let them as we are entirely reliant on Chinese manufacturing; they could cripple us if they halted exports.

    • SomethingBlack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      I agree with almost everything here, but I don’t think an embargo on China would be as damaging as you think it would.

      It would hurt, don’t get me wrong, but China is largely in the position it is now because the developed world was looking for cheap labour and China fit the bill. There is no lack of underdeveloped nations who would gladly shift their economy if it meant they could support a fraction of the manufacturing supply that China currently commands. Africa and South America (not a single nation, I know but this is true of many African and South American nations so I’m combining for simplicity’s sake) is positioned both politically and geographically, to be a sudo-China in terms of manufacturing if the wider world decides to embargo China-proper.

      The US and EU pulling out of China would devastated them far more than it would affect the former. I’d like to think that the EU at least, would be willing to withstand some economic damage to aid another nation in need.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 days ago

        It took 30 years for Chinese manufacturing to reach what it is today.
        Yes, other countries would love to take on that role.
        But it would take another 30 years, IF China cooperated and pushed the transition like the west did. Which they won’t.

        • SomethingBlack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          But that only takes into account the time when China started their shift into manufacturing. China has been THE dominant manufacturer for at least 20 years now. So we shouldn’t judge by today, but should judge by their rise to dominance.

          Plus having a distribution of countries to use as manufacturers allows for specialists to emerge, likely speeding up their individual adoption of the role they choose.

          And why would China cooperate with their own exclusion from the world market? And even if they chose economic suicide, why would their assistance be required for other countries to become manufacturers?

        • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          China doesn’t need to push the transitioning. Juat like you said, the previous time that push was done by the west. The same west can do the same push again.

      • baldingpudenda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        I’m not well read on india’s modern manufacturing capabilities, but I do know that they have been trying for a while to up their manufacturing exports and entice jobs that would normally go to china. 1 billion ppl is a competitive sized workforce.

        If America and EU needed an immediate substitute, india could fit the bill.

        • SomethingBlack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          This is exactly it. There are plenty of options, removing what is currently the best option just means picking the next best and so on and so on until we reach stability

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Not really, for the same reasons Russia’s economy is now in the shitter: sure they could sell oil to another country, but changing the whole infrastructure is not something that can be done in days. Same with moving the whole production of goods to a completely new country.

        Also consider that nowadays western countries have lost the knowhow to produce efficiently goods (while their service industry still remains unmatched)

        • SomethingBlack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          I can see the point your making. I’m not suggesting it’d be easy but if we moving to Russia as the example Russia would be the standin for China, not the wider world.

          Russia’s economy is now shit because they got embargoed, as China’s would be, it hurt the wider world briefly, but that has mostly passed.

          And I didn’t suggest western countries take on the brunt of the manufacturing, I suggested it should be countries that would benefit from the overhaul to their economy