r/Anticonsumption • u/Louisvanderwright • 3d ago

Discussion "Free Trade" has always been about destroying American labor and circumventing environmental laws

https://youtu.be/ovDNI3K5R7s?si=14W_BKZtFN-JcZBq

[removed] — view removed post

331 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

108 comments sorted by

View all comments

236

u/ObjectiveBike8 3d ago

Maybe if it was just tariffs on countries with terrible labor practices, but there’s no reason to destroy our relationships with our closest allies, most of which have better labor practices than us. 

-29

u/nivkj 3d ago

Our “” allies that are always the ones benefiting through our partnership? Yeah we’re not a charity anymore, we are going through recession

17

u/ObjectiveBike8 3d ago

Two parties can benefit from a partnership. 

-23

u/nivkj 3d ago

And I am saying that one party benefits more. And it’s never us

11

u/blueshoenick 2d ago

America doesn’t benefit from USD being the world’s reserve currency? How are you qualifying that we benefit less than our trade partners?

-2

u/nivkj 2d ago

because we only deal in money (loans stocks and interest) we don’t have any actual capital. Capital is not just a fiat currency it’s actual goods and production. none of which we have. Shipyards are baron we have no production capacity, we’re really just waiting for other companies to screw us over so it makes sense to do it to them first so that we can continue to be the world currency

5

u/blueshoenick 2d ago

So if we have no production capacity (which isn’t true at least not in the absolutist terms you’ve used), shifting to tariffs prior to building that capacity makes sense because? Do the adverse effects of such a premature shift offset the potential positives of reduced consumption?

How do we maintain reserve currency status by “screwing our trade partners over first”? Do you feel like that kind of global instability is somehow a solution to Triffin’s dilemma?

0

u/nivkj 2d ago

we are capitalists. there is no monetary incentive for companies to build us production facilities. this would be one of the few ways to do it. hence why it is quite a drastic measure.

in terms of triffin i have no idea it’s a dilemma for a reason. but i think that something drastic / unorthodox would need to be done to solve it

5

u/blueshoenick 2d ago

this would be one of the few ways to do it

Based on what evidence? Also again, does the near term pain offset the long term goal which isn’t guaranteed? Would a gradual adaptation not be better?

i think something drastic / unorthodox would need to be done to solve it.

So as long as some drastic and unorthodox is tried we can absolve ourselves of other consequences? Maybe I’m misreading your tone, but you present your statements as implicitly correct without considering confounding variables. Have you studied Triffin’s dilemma?

i have no idea

Clearly

0

u/nivkj 2d ago

i don’t need to have thoroughly studied triffin to have an economic opinion.

short term pain would be much better than a complete collapse. yes.

let me guess you want the same old to maintain itself. establishment politicians funded by big hedge funds enriching themselves and selling you this idea of just keep SLOWLY making things worse and pretending it’s getting better

1

u/blueshoenick 2d ago

The problem is that you’re presenting your opinions as fact, despite the fact that your solution exacerbates the dilemma and makes outcomes worse. Furthermore, you’re putting words in my mouth that the only other outcome is complete collapse. I no longer believe you are presenting your argument in good faith.

0

u/nivkj 2d ago

that’s fine if you feel that but it’s really simple.

a. continue our continuing decent into economic collapse

or

b. try something drastic that may have short (or long) term consequences but counters the system that has enabled the upcoming collapse.

there is no fact in opinion. i state my beliefs and its implied that i think my opinions are correct

1

u/blueshoenick 2d ago edited 2d ago

Dood, the fact that you think it’s as simple as 2 different choices tells me all I need to know about how unqualified you are to make such an assertion, and just to be clear even a basic understanding of Triffin’s Dilemma should be enough to understand why you’re wrong about tariffs strengthening USD as the global reserve.

While we’re at it, I suggest you learn the difference between near term and short term, baron and barren, and decent and descent. Maybe also consider not using fragments as declaratives and it’ll be clearer that you’re stating an opinion.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/Naturath 2d ago

“Profits were split 40/60, to which I object. I shall improve this situation by obliterating all profitability. Everyone is now worse off, but at least nobody is benefitting more than me.”

Even in one were to take your premise at face value, the actions taken are nonsensical. The proliferation of zero-sum mentality is one of the greatest delusions endemic to the US.

-9

u/nivkj 2d ago edited 2d ago

As soon as we stand up for being taken advantage of the empaths come out of the woodwork to screech. if we have a failing economy so will all the countries that rely on (and take advantage of) us

11

u/Naturath 2d ago

My response has nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with pragmatism. Your answer to supposedly being dealt an unfair hand is to tear up all the cards and shoot everyone in the foot, self included. You advocate self-sabotage while complaining about sabotage. You crash the economy then blame a poor economy for your actions. I’ve seen primary schoolers with better capacity for introspection, future planning, and critical thought.

There are indeed those who take advantage of the US and its populace. However, MAGA generally tries to elect them into office.

-2

u/nivkj 2d ago

yeah you’re complete ignoring the reality. we’ve been in steady decline for a while. inflation cost of living and other economic factors are in reallllly bad spots right now. the answer proposed by corporate elite is to just maintain the status quo (and continue to enrich themselves) or to restart. restructure. re industrialize. and set our selves up for years of prosperity. will it tank? of course i don’t deny that. but its a necessity to prevent something WORSE than the dow decreasing a bit. the ones who will take the biggest losses are large investors anyways.

7

u/Naturath 2d ago

You do realize that factories and factory workers don’t grow on trees? That any genuine attempt to re-industrialize would require years to build the required infrastructure and years more before local talent could be trained to the required level? Generally speaking, one would want to have such matters in place prior to burning every imaginable bridge.

Now, all this ignores the current administration’s concerted efforts to prevent infrastructural development. Words are cheap; actions show one’s true goals. The US is not poised for autarky by any perceivable metric, and this is entirely by design.

You are a fool if you think the current crisis will genuinely harm the “largest investors.” They can afford to weather the storm and recoup for cheap the assets and market share lost by much smaller players. This will do nothing but entrench the existing oligarchy, again by design.

Economic decline, cost of living increases, and other similar issues are hardly unique to the US. Attributing such problems to “everyone else” is as self-centred as it is paranoid. But you need to keep in mind that such times are ripe pickings for scam artists hoping to capitalize on desperation. The current administration is filled with conmen who care for public quality of life about as much as your average scam call centre.

2

u/MoneyUse4152 2d ago

It will directly benefit those largest investors, especially the ones who already have manufacturing plants in the US because they no longer have to compete with international prices (or international qualities, really). Now US customers are going to be faced with the true costs of products, plus some greedflation. Because what's stopping them?

6

u/MoneyUse4152 2d ago

It's ALWAYS been the US that benefited more. You're talking about Pax Americana and rightfully criticising it, but for all the wrong reasons!

Read Paul Wolfowitz' "Remembering the Future". It should give you an idea of how any relationship with the US is like a deal with the devil and the rest of the world ended up selling our soul to you.

3

u/blueshoenick 2d ago edited 2d ago

It’s ALWAYS been the US that benefited more. You’re talking about Pax Americana and rightfully criticising it, but for all the wrong reasons!

Read Paul Wolfowitz’ “Remembering the Future”. It should give you an idea of how any relationship with the US is like a deal with the devil and the rest of the world ended up selling our soul to you.

THIS, thank you! I’m not sure it matters though. The person you’re responding to seems so unwilling acknowledge his misunderstandings in favor of being confidently incorrect that I suspect they must be a troll, a bot, or an astroturfer. Joke’s on us I guess.

3

u/Agent_Dulmar_DTI 2d ago

Global trade isn't a zero sum game. Both sides can benefit at the same time, there isn't always a winner and a loser. In most cases both sides win.