Maybe Trump genuienly wants to disrupt neoliberalism?
Now, a lot of people on the left use "neoliberalism" in the same way people on the right use "woke", or (Eu) football fans use the word "offside" i.e. it means "it's anything the other side do that I don't like". But neoliberalism actually has a definition used by more serious people - generally free trade and the reduction of government interference.
Maybe Trump doesn't want globalisation, maybe Trump wants stuff to be made in the USA. Maybe he wants to roll trade back to before 1968, the Hakone Maru, and the TEU container, to when he was in his 20s (a lot of people think that their formative years were the best, since that's when they were made, and I doubt Trump is an exception). I'm not saying Trump isn't a hypocrite, but is it slightly possible that some of what he says is actually what he intends to do, e.g. "making America great again" meaning in part a disruption to the globalised world order that the online left always seems to think is evil?
Maybe maybe maybe. These excuses are a fantasy. Have you considered maybe he really likes money and himself and anything outside of that doesn't fire any neurons?
I'm not saying Trump isn't a hypocrite, but is it slightly possible that some of what he says is actually what he intends to do, as I said in my comment.
He's dumb, sure. He's out of his depth. He's greedy. But he also has strong opinions (some of which are consistent, some ... less so) on how the US should be run. The idea that he doesn't have some political agenda when he spends hours ranting about it and seems to be implementing bits of it is just pure fantasy land.
Have you heard the engineering adage "the purpose of a system is what it does"?
Second-guessing the motivations of the Trump administration is tiresome. Let's just judge it by what it does and its effects, both speak for themselves.
> Maybe Trump doesn't want globalisation, maybe Trump wants stuff to be made in the USA.
As I said, what he is doing is not going to get stuff made in the US. Even if we had all of the raw materials needed (we don't), the US doesn't have the talent to spin up a manufacturing hub. That is the missing piece to all of these conversations. So we don't have the materials, we don't have the skills, and we seem to be attacking education so it doesn't look training people to do these things is in the cards? How is this plan meant to work?
The only lifeline I can throw your comment is that he wants to invade Canada and Greenland to steal their raw materials which at least lines up with the idea of getting raw materials to build up manufacturing.
> Even if we had all of the raw materials needed (we don't),
What is this brand of defeatist bullpucky? There is no raw material which is not contained within the borders of the US. Only some which are less expensive to extract elsewhere.
> the US doesn't have the talent to spin up a manufacturing hub.
I humbly invite you to visit https://www.imts.com/ this year in Chicago. If, after that, you believe that there's something that can't be manufactured in the US, I'll eat my hat.
> What is this brand of defeatist bullpucky? There is no raw material which is not contained within the borders of the US. Only some which are less expensive to extract elsewhere.
Let me rephrase this. We don't have the raw materials unless we destroy national parks and pollute our waterways. We also don't have the facilities to process these materials.
> I humbly invite you to visit https://www.imts.com/ this year in Chicago. If, after that, you believe that there's something that can't be manufactured in the US, I'll eat my hat.
This link says 2026 not 2025.
> Let me rephrase this. We don't have the raw materials unless we destroy national parks and pollute our waterways.
I've got news for you, that ship sailed a hundred, two hundred years ago. Most of the eastern seaboard of the US was clearcut of old growth forest. What we have now on the east coast is new growth. Still, the number of acres of old growth remaining is staggering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old-growth_forests#Uni... And I see no problem with forestry when practiced sustainably.
If you're asking for no resource extraction, then you're asking either for negative economic growth or exploitation of someone else somewhere else. Far more responsible to regulate the industry here, where we have jurisdiction to ensure it is done sustainably, safely, and equitably. And far better for economic integrity in cases of pandemic or war.
> And I see no problem with forestry when practiced sustainably.
I don't have a problem with most things when done sustainably. What in the history of the US makes you believe it will be done sustainably? Gas companies still publicly deny or downplay climate change.
> What in the history of the US makes you believe it will be done sustainably?
Unions, labor law, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_sit-down_strike in which the national guard and police used automatic weapons against striking workers, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster immortalized in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz7oguguIZE the winning of the work week, overtime pay, healthcare of any kind, holidays, payment in legal tender, existence of the country in the first place... so much more. I won't sugar coat it, no human endeavor is ever perfect, but I find the attitude that we can't do it, or we don't want to do it here as backwards and regressive. Worthy of rebuke. If our society depends on something, we should have no shame in doing it here. And if we can't figure out how to do it here safely, then we definitely shouldn't be doing it elsewhere.
These are all great accomplishments for labor law but they have nothing to do with sustainability. Maybe I'm not being clear, when I say sustainably, I mean for the environment. Most energy companies won't even admit climate change is real or severely downplay it. So no, I still don't think it will be done sustainably.
> These are all great accomplishments for labor law
You asked me about what inspired me. I told you. If you need environmental wins, there's:
- Erin Brockovich vs. Pacific Gas & Electric (1993 Settlement)
- Dewayne Johnson vs. Monsanto (2018)
- Robert Bilott vs. DuPont (PFOA Contamination Cases, 1990s–2017)
- Roundup Litigation Beyond Johnson (2019–2020s)
- Founding of the EPA
- Passage of the clean water act
Just for a start.
Feel free to snatch defeat from the jaws of success before ever trying, though. Much easier that way. And probably someone else's fault.
> Now, a lot of people on the left use "neoliberalism" in the same way people on the right use "woke", or (Eu) football fans use the word "offside" i.e. it means "it's anything the other side do that I don't like". But neoliberalism actually has a definition used by more serious people - generally free trade and the reduction of government interference.
... That's how it's used on the left
>Maybe Trump doesn't want globalisation,
Strange of him to renegotiate NAFTA in his first term then