Shots Fired at White House Correspondants Dinner

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

The topic has run its course for now anyway... Let's talk about capitalism.

We shot ourselves in the foot on that one. It's amazing that we can grow cotton, ship it overseas to be made into fabric, the fabric is then made into t shirts and then shipped back to us cheaper than we can make them ourselves.

Outsourcing our manufacturing killed far too much of our industry,

Double edge sword of neoliberalism.  

Were still very capitalist. And the China Trade Shock proves it. We lost 25% (1.5 to 2 million manufacturing jobs) in the 7 years following China's admission to the WTO in 2001. 

The Neoliberal policies granted China "permanent normal trade relations." And what that means is (Global free trade policies) removed the threat of sudden tariff spikes.  

Our manufacturing was now in direct capitalist competition with China without financial risk.  So it gave impetus to offshore everything, and they did. 

For those of us that prefer laissez faire, we have to confront the ramifications of our globalist capitalism. The displaced manufacturing workers struggled to find new jobs and had to do something else...

BUT the companies shipping manufacturing overseas added jobs in distribution and logistics and the higher end of the supply chain which just screwed over the unionized worker without a union job anymore.  

And now the landscape is such to where FOEREIGN companies are more likely to offshore THEIR labor here, like Mercedes, Toyota, and BMW, especially BMW.  

They said, "Hey, we pay less to manufacture in US States with lower average wages." 

So it all shuffles around globally, but always finds its most profitable level. Which is now entrenched and global.

That's why I reject Trumps notion that tariffs are the answer to returning manufacturing. We lost 89,000 manufacturing jobs again in 2025. He's adding jobs in VERY specific sectors, like metal production, but more downstream jobs are being shed than total added.

He went to a power-based model that attempts to bring it back, but really turns him into the worlds largest power broker using the US economy itself and selective tariffs to try leverage certain industries back, but also creates volatility by forcing investment freezes and a new strategy for the disrupted entrenched profitable supply chains.. 

All in all, I feel he took something that wasn't broken and broke it around his need to have greater executive control over the global economy and justified by saying "globalism has ripped us off more than it lowered costs." 

And of course all the favoritism that goes into which industries benefit by tailoring tariffs to grow specific sectors.. Like Oil, Coal, and Steel, and the selective companies that benefit. 

It's like "protectionist cronyism." 

Trump: The Insider Trading President. Not so much unilateral free trade and limited government anymore.

Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are screaming at him from the afterlife now.

[DBCowboy]

The topic has run its course for now anyway... Let's talk about capitalism.


Double edge sword of neoliberalism.  

Were still very capitalist. And the China Trade Shock proves it. We lost 25% (1.5 to 2 million manufacturing jobs) in the 7 years following China's admission to the WTO in 2001. 

The Neoliberal policies granted China "permanent normal trade relations." And what that means is (Global free trade policies) removed the threat of sudden tariff spikes.  

Our manufacturing was now in direct capitalist competition with China without financial risk.  So it gave impetus to offshore everything, and they did. 

For those of us that prefer laissez faire, we have to confront the ramifications of our globalist capitalism. The displaced manufacturing workers struggled to find new jobs and had to do something else...

BUT the companies shipping manufacturing overseas added jobs in distribution and logistics and the higher end of the supply chain which just screwed over the unionized worker without a union job anymore.  

And now the landscape is such to where FOEREIGN companies are more likely to offshore THEIR labor here, like Mercedes, Toyota, and BMW, especially BMW.  

They said, "Hey, we pay less to manufacture in US States with lower average wages." 

So it all shuffles around globally, but always finds its most profitable level. Which is now entrenched and global.

That's why I reject Trumps notion that tariffs are the answer to returning manufacturing. We lost 89,000 manufacturing jobs again in 2025. He's adding jobs in VERY specific sectors, like metal production, but more downstream jobs are being shed than total added.

He went to a power-based model that attempts to bring it back, but really turns him into the worlds largest power broker using the US economy itself and selective tariffs to try leverage certain industries back, but also creates volatility by forcing investment freezes and a new strategy for the disrupted entrenched profitable supply chains.. 

All in all, I feel he took something that wasn't broken and broke it around his need to have greater executive control over the global economy and justified by saying "globalism has ripped us off more than it lowered costs." 

And of course all the favoritism that goes into which industries benefit by tailoring tariffs to grow specific sectors.. Like Oil, Coal, and Steel, and the selective companies that benefit. 

It's like "protectionist cronyism." 

Trump: The Insider Trading President. Not so much unilateral free trade and limited government anymore.

Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are screaming at him from the afterlife now.

Why are tariffs bad when the US does them?

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Why are tariffs bad when the US does them?

One line or word salad political answer that doesnt answer the question at all? 

The second one! 

It's been an evolving landscape. Things changed politically. Not really bad as much as not the same environment. 

The 2016 "Fracture": The rise of populism on both the right (Donald Trump) and left (Bernie Sanders) represented a direct rejection of neoliberal globalism and free-trade agreements. Historian Gary Gerstle, author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, identifies Trump’s 2016 election as a major sign that the order had unraveled.

Ended. Gone. 

The REAL election of populists in 2016 was SUPPOSED to be Sanders vs. Trump. 

The entrenched policies that uniformly kept from Reagan to G.W. Bush hit a recession in 2008 and 2009 and Obama, while trying to keep it neoliberal, began a long 8 year track record of attempted social reform that inflated government and slowly led to the eventual fracture. It pushed everyone towards Trump or Sanders, largely driven by the ACA.  

leading to death being called officially..



The continuum of neoliberal policy that went unnoticed mostly went screwy after the 2008 financial crisis and then finally split by 2016 into two new parties that are far less moderate (or alike) in their administrations. 

So my perspective of whats good or bad is a vestige of lost America anyway. A swamp drained for something new. Enjoy the new parties everyone! How's polarized populism working out?

[BeyondKnowledge]

The way I see the modern tribalism we have now is not entirely political. Oh, pliltics was a deviding factor but it goes much deeper. Too many news sources running continually. 

When I was young, we had 3 TV channels, a couple of radio stations that made news and one paper. The TV ha the 6 o'clock news every evening, 30 minutes local and 30 minutes national. 

That was it. Everyone preferred one channel or the other but we still occasionally watched the other channels. This is how everyone mostly got the same news that everyone else did. 

Now we have over a dozen cable news channels going 24/7 and you pick the one that feeds you what you want. We have thousand of news feeds from all over the world on the Internet to also pick and choose what you see as happening. All different points of view on exactly the same title of information. I said title because often that is the only thing they have in common. Not the story, nor the facts, just the headline and often the names of some characters. 

Now, when Clifford in the state of delusion gets mad about how his government representative voted, and Reginald in the state of confusion gets mad about the same thing, only for the opposite reason, that is the problem. 

Clifford got his news from the national blabitall and Reginald only trusts WNN, the Walrus News Network. Both watched the same titled story and think they know what happened. But both only know what they are told by their favorite source. 

Now Clifford and Reginald are mad about what they saw in the story. If they encounter each other on line, they may squabble in text. If the meet in real life, depending on the circumstances and how mad they are, they can have a physical altercation. 

Who is to blame? The article was about representative Weaselbreath wanting to ban sliced bread for environmental reasons. Clifford did not like having to slice his own bread and Reginald was mad because sliced cheese was not also banned. They were both told that by their favorite news source. 

Now, do you see that around 90% of the arguing is about whether the toast should be buttered on top or bottom just because you read a story on a diferent source? 

The mice have done a great job training the descendants of telephone sanitizers and hair stylists.

[Oldcarpy2]

The way I see the modern tribalism we have not is not entirely political. Oh, pliltics was a deviding factor but it goes much deeper. Too many news sources running continually. 

When I was young, we had 3 TV channels, a couple of radio stations that made news and one paper. The TV ha the 6 o'clock news every evening, 30 minutes local and 30 minutes national. 

That was it. Everyone preferred one channel or the other but we still occasionally watched the other channels. This is how everyone mostly got the same news that everyone else did. 

Now we have over a dozen cable news channels going 24/7 and you pick the one that feeds you what you want. We have thousand of news feeds from all over the world on the Internet to also pick and choose what you see as happening. All different points of view on exactly the same title of information. I said title because often that is the only thing they have in common. Not the story, nor the facts, just the headline and often the names of some characters. 

Now, when Clifford in the state of delusion gets mad about how his government representative voted, and Reginald in the state of confusion gets mad about the same thing, only for the opposite reason, that is the problem. 

Clifford got his news from the national blabitall and Reginald only trusts WNN, the Walrus News Network. Both watched the same titled story and think they know what happened. But both only know what they are told by their favorite source. 

Now Clifford and Reginald are mad about what they saw in the story. If they encounter each other on line, they may squabble in text. If the meet in real life, depending on the circumstances and how mad they are, they can have a physical altercation. 

Now who is to blame? The article was about representative Weaelbreath wanting to ban sliced bread for environmental reasons. Clifford did not like having to slice his own bread and Reginald was mad because sliced cheese was not also banned. They were both told that by their favorite news source. 

Now, do you see that around 90% of the arguing is about whether the toast should be buttered on top or bottom just because you read a story on a diferent source? 

The mice have done a great job training the descendants of telephone sanitizers and hair stylists.

One paper?!!!!

[BeyondKnowledge]

One paper?!!!!

There were some national and one from a large city nearby available but most only subscribed to the local paper regularly. I would guess less than 5% subscribed to other papers. Thet is how it looked when I was involved in a couple of paper recycling drives.

[Harte]

So, you and others are sticking with the 486 to Pinteum argument? Mocroprocessors started having names instead of numbers because the courts could not understand that numbers could be names and have meanings. They could not register 586 as a trademark according to the courts. So the 586 became the Pentium.

I think language has progressed beyond that, 67 for example. A meaningless number that now has meaning.

And 86 has history behind it, being many decades old.

No idea what you're on about.
"86" means get rid of, not murder.

Harte

[BeyondKnowledge]

No idea what you're on about.
"86" means get rid of, not murder.

Harte

If you tell a group of a thousand people that you are going to 86 someone. Probably more than six hundred would think you were going to kill them. I spelled out most of the numbers becaus it seems you understand words better.

[DBCowboy]

No idea what you're on about.
"86" means get rid of, not murder.

Harte

"get rid of" is another way to say "murder".

[Oldcarpy2]

"get rid of" is another way to say "murder".

Or, vote out?  25th Amendment?

I want rid of Starmer, as do a lot of folk over here.

That doesn't mean we want him murdered.

Only in America, it seems.