• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Anti-Trade

    What does this mean?

    Anti-NATO

    It’s good to be Anti-NATO, NATO has Nazi origins and serves as a way to maintain Western Hegemony, securing profits via Imperialism and defending said Imperialism through coalition.

      • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        anti globalist, economically it’s just universally bad

        Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          funnily enough my comment was removed, unsure why, pretty sure it was mostly accurate though lol.

          I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.

          it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

          It’s a give and take, like everything is. But regardless, globalism is generally good for the economy.

          • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It is weird that your comment was removed.

            it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

            Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

            Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It is weird that your comment was removed.

              yeah idk i’ve seen weird shit happen a few times so far, btw if you’re a mod and remove shit, please tell people why even if its literally just quoting what they said that got it deleted.

              Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

              yeah, if you’re a globalism absolutist that would be silly, but tariffs are a useful market force, they allow competition in market sectors that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Farming gets a lot of subsidies for these reasons, and when we’re talking about shit like non essentials a chinese EV specifically, the implications of it on the market are a lot less significant than something like tariffing AA batteries produced outside of america.

              The trump admin tariffed canadian lumber imports. Why? There’s a reason they have a lumber industry, it’s because they can do it for cheaper than we can (they have a lot more wooded lands, and a lot less people living there)

              yes a 100% tariff on EVs is quite significant, but then again, we have a massive domestic auto manufacturing capability, as well as a general lack of need for “foreign EVs” it might make the market cheaper and more accessible, but that’s coming eventually anyway.

              Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

              i’m generally inclined to agree especially on a federal level, IMO i think that tariffs generally have a really subtle market effect, and i think that’s generally the intention of them. They aren’t meant to be massive blanket sweeps. If you really wanted to incentivize people to own EVs you wouldn’t import them at 0% tariff, you would just subsidize owning or buying an EV. You would just make it more accessible, you fund domestic production and development of EVs.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                They were leaders of NATO, not speaking at a NATO event.

                You’re working overtime to normalize Nazism.

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  bro i have spent the equivalent of 12 seconds on this thread. Donald trump was the US president, is the entire fucking country fascist now because of him?

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    The United States, as in the State itself? Yes, actually, however I’m sure you understand that literal fucking Nazis leading NATO is a sign of it being Nazi friendly, don’t you think?

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      Lmao

      Mutual defense and deterrent to invasion by hostile world powers both in and outside of NATO is a bad thing? Sure, okay pal.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        .

        Also, don’t send us reports just because you don’t agree with someone. We’re not here to censor people for you.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh no! So you want to talk about how the mutual self defence pact is somehow oppressing you or will you just keep dodging forever?

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Reason: User threatens me not to report his alt accounts for misinformation again

            What alt accounts? What are you even talking about? That’s two bullshit reports in one day, wasting our time.

            Reason: Claimes NATO forces other nations into subservience.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s an alliance between Imperialist countries, and the alliance itself has Nazi origins and has had Nazi leaders. Yes, it’s a bad thing, because Imperialism is a bad thing.

        It’s a gang of countries that hyper-exploit the Global South in mutual defense against said Global South.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It’s literally only function is a deterrent to war, including by members against others as they will not gain NATO support unless they are attacked.

          Its members might exploit, but thats a meaningless statement about NATO itself because without NATO there would literally be more war.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s literally only function is a deterrent to war, including by members against others as they will not gain NATO support unless they are attacked.

            It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries, and NATO exerts military pressure on the Global South.

            Its members might exploit, but thats a meaningless statement about NATO itself because without NATO there would literally be more war.

            Bzzzzt wrong. NATO’s only function is to preserve Western Hegemony and dominate the Global South militarily, so that member-States can continue exploiting ruthlessly unopposed. This results in proxy wars, such as the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries

              this isn’t super accurate, joining nato has some pretty strict requirements, and besides yeeting NATO would be like the west completely nuking china and russia because “they did a human rights violation” it’s just a dogwhistle lmao.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Its not expansionist because you have to request to join.

              The only objecting countries whose wishes you’re referring to are nations who want to invade potential NATO members.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Its not expansionist because you have to request to join

                Bzzzzt wrong. NATO is expansionist because it pressures non-member states and routinely starts proxy wars.

                The only countries whose wishes you’re referring to are nations who want to invade potential NATO members.

                Bzzzzzt wrong. Western Hegemony damages the Global South and NATO keeps member-states unaccountable.

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You’re accusing America of causing Russian annexation of Crimea and subsequent war on Ukraine?

                  You think Russia is working for NATO?

                  Pressuring people into a mutual defence pact lol such an evil thing lol