Probably not but this is only one test.
** * He found it would cost three times as much to produce — and raised the sale price by 85%.**
I went on Temu and they are posting on their website the items that are not being tariffed. The reason they are not being tariffed is because they were brought on shore and put in a warehouse before the tariffs. I think Amazon is doing us all a disservice.
Which is what my experience in retail showed. Wish I had a nickle for every person who came in my RS, and the first thing out of their mouth was “what’s your cheapest?” USians are funny in the head. They spend vast amounts on stuff they don’t need, but insist that each bit of that stuff be the cheapest possible. Like my coworker crying about being broke, but koffing up $300 each for tickets for her daughter and herself, for a “Hanna Montana” concert.
Steve
Most people don’t realize that it’s not just about lower costs—it’s about the infrastructure and localized supply chains that enable both scale and higher quality. These networks aren’t built in four years, or even in decades. The U.S. wants to manufacture everything domestically out of fear that China could cut them off at any time. And sure, that’s possible—especially if relations remain hostile. So why choose China to be our Enemy? Why provoke China in the first place?
It’s not just about drones, some defense components, or gear in our military arsenal that have come from China. Nor are we just talking about cars that can map everything or steel for our missiles. The real issue for most is about the products we need for our livelihood. Yes, in part the cheap stuff from Temu—but also the pricier items the U.S. simply can’t produce. Take clothing, for example—particularly silk and other high-end fabrics which require special skills to produce. America doesn’t sew, and it certainly doesn’t produce silk garments. It never really had that expertise to begin with. And now we want to do that too? Do we really want to revive clothmaking—the very first industries of the Industrial Revolution? Some say, “No, of course we don’t want that back,” but then insist it shouldn’t be made in China either. Well, here’s a reality check: there aren’t many silk clothing factories outside of China. The skills just aren’t there.
So now we won’t buy from China. What do we do? we try to bring up India as the replacement source of cheap labor to make our stuff? They still cannot make silk garments as well as the chineses. Nor can they make iphones yet. Sure, they will learn eventually after a bit of practice.
We are trying to make India our friend against China like we made China our friend against the Soviets. Trump had this fancy that he could do a reverse Nixon- Dream on. That has always been the US game. We declare who is the Enemy and we play the rest against it, and we win. It is all about WINNING. What did we win? what has he ever won?
Well if it is Montana it has to be worth it.
You instigate a laff break
The only person named “Montana” that I know if is this guy: “Utah Johnny Montana”. It used to be “Utah Johnny Cougar Montana”, but he dropped the “Cougar” because it sounded pretentious.
This clip shows the role of the little guy.
The shootout. Watch the guy in the stovepipe hat at the end of the clip.
Steve
Their name is Schwenke. not Montana…but that’s ok.
Steve
Because China is using the loot the US, and EU, throw at it, to challenge USian hegemony.
Steve
What is the disservice?
DB2
The same disservice Walmart did for us 35 years ago.
ralph
This kind of characterization is entirely off the mark. Originally, the United States sought to bring China into its fold as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. Later, American policymakers developed the misguided notion that China could be transformed in their image—much like they believed they had done with Japan and South Korea. I say “believed” because, although Japan and South Korea are democratic, they are not Western in mindset or behavior. Still, U.S. influence over them was impactful.
But it’s important to remember that Japan was a defeated nation in World War II. It had no choice but to submit to American authority, and the U.S. shaped its postwar development. Of course, Japan pursued its own interests and eventually tried to challenge the U.S. economically. But it lost that battle because the U.S. retained overwhelming political and military dominance—something Japan could never contest.
Now, we face a different situation with China. China is not Japan. It was never subjugated by the U.S., and it is far larger, with a deep and continuous cultural history. Even in the post-WWII decades, when China was poor and isolated, it did not bend. The U.S. pulled China out of isolation mainly to use it against the Soviets. Later, elements within the U.S. foreign policy establishment clung to the delusion that China could be molded like they did with Japan or with Taiwan— the latter of which the U.S. has kept under its wing ever since the Chinese Civil War when the losing side fled to the island. While the U.S. pivoted toward Beijing in the 1970s, it never stopped supporting the island with the idea that the US might eventually use it against the Mainland. The US certainly did not expect the success China has had over these years but Nixon and his successors knew of Napoleon’s (or some 19th century European’s) saying: “China is a sleeping giant, when she wakes she will shake the world”.
China was never going to be “converted,” and that’s the root of the frustration and disillusionment now felt in certain circles of the foreign policy elite. Eventually, they realized they had to shift their approach.
I don’t subscribe to the idea that China is not playing by the rules. This is an interpretation that is simply in our interest. We will never admit we lost. We will say the adversary cheated or stole. That is the wrong narrative. It is wrong for them but also for us. They did not cheat. They just did what anyone in the system could have done but better. I agree that the balance issue should be considered and I think the Chineses are not antithetical to this idea of re-balancing trade.
The narrative linking Chinese competition to the struggles of American workers and small businesses was crafted to manufacture domestic support for a harder line. The government couldn’t exactly come out and admit: “We abandoned workers and small businesses. We let you fall behind while foreign competitors—and our own greedy multinationals—got rich.” Instead, they needed a scapegoat. They couldn’t blame Wall Street or corporate America. So they blamed China. Simple. Convenient. Now the story makes sense, and you have a rallying cry.
In general I don’t subscribe to the idea of the Thucydides trap or that a local hegemon is a threat to America. The Monroe doctrine is something that needs to be retired. I would repeat my naive hope that China and the US can work together for the benefit of the whole world. Having them at loggerheads can only be detrimental to all.
Yeah, and Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. Seems evident that USian businesses looked at a backward China and saw a huge market to exploit. Then Friedman legitimized offshoring production, because the first movers would enjoy fat profits from using the cheap labor to build stuff for US sale. The Chinese learned their lessons well, and now challenge the US for economic and military hegemony. That is a problem for the USian PTB.
Steve
if you talk about Thomas the journalist, he was only chronicling the ups and downs of globalization. He is did not legitimize anything.
The second part of that assertion, I believe, is flawed. The United States views China as a challenge primarily because China is different—not because it poses a real threat. But China has no intention of challenging the U.S. Unlike the U.S., China does not proselytize or seek to export its model. It accepts the U.S. for what it is and simply wants a relationship based on equality, while preserving its own system and identity.
What many fail to understand is that China does not harbor hegemonic ambitions—this is evident not only in its rhetoric, but in its historical behavior. That reality doesn’t align with conventional geopolitical theories, which often assume all rising powers seek dominance. Applying those frameworks to China can lead to serious misjudgments and potentially dangerous outcomes. China cannot, and will not, accept threats to its existence. Yet some actions rooted in these theories are interpreted as existential threats by China.
So the real question is: who is actually threatening whom? That’s the only geopolitical truth worth confronting.
I contend that China is not a threat to the US, and poking the bear with some vague intentions is dangerous.
You know I am referring to Milton, or you should. I have posted enough about him in the context of “free trade”.
The “Belt and Road” thing, and incursions in the South China Sea, are products of a deranged imagination?
Steve
You were talking about offshoring… Offshoring can be seen as a natural outcome of free trade, where production and specialization shift to the regions that can perform them most efficiently- competitive advantage. Milton Friedman was a proponent of Free Trade but did not focus specifically on offshoring.
So no it definitely wasn’t obvious you were speaking about Milton. My spill was not so much about defending free trade but to give context as to why we are doing all this tariff nonsense and what we might be trying to do with regard to China.
The Belt and Road Initiative serves multiple objectives aimed at benefiting both China and its partner countries, and it has no military component. It’s more comparable to the voyages of Zheng He, who sailed abroad to build goodwill and recognition for China, rather than to extract direct benefit for China alone. Contrast that with what the European navigators did almost a century later. That’s not to say China doesn’t gain from the BRI—it certainly does—but so do the participating countries. It’s a far cry from colonial ventures or exploitative enterprises like the United Fruit Company in Central America or Dole in Hawaii. The Belt and Road is built on the idea of mutual benefit and cooperative development.
When it comes to the South China Sea, it’s essential to understand the historical context before making any meaningful claims. You won’t learn much about that history from CNN, Fox, the BBC, or most mainstream commentators—they rarely explore this in much depth, or at all.
The United States often dictates policy to the Philippines, and the current administration under Marcos tends to comply. That dynamic is usually left unspoken in the coverage, even though it shapes much of what gets reported. Unfortunately, the Philippines is not approaching the dispute constructively.
Territorial disagreements in the South China Sea have been ongoing for decades. The countries directly involved have been working through these issues themselves. They don’t need U.S. interference. And that’s not just China’s stance—it reflects the position of most ASEAN countries, with the notable exception of Marcos’ Philippines.
What happened in Tibet?
To really answer your question, you’d need to learn a bit of Chinese history for the last 2000 years.
That question doesn’t actually challenge the core of my argument one iota.
You really want to know what happened in Tibet? What happened in Tibet? Over the past several decades, the economy there has grown significantly, and people’s living standards have improved—just like in much of the rest of China.
Now, you might argue that China has mistreated some of its people. But think about this: foreigners might say the same about us—that we’ve exploited workers, oppressed minorities, or even committed atrocities against Indigenous peoples. Would you accept that kind of comparison? Probably not. You’d say, “It’s not the same.” And you’d be right—these aren’t identical situations, and each ought to be considered in its context.
But where does this line of argument lead to? Is that constructive or it is just something we repeat over and over until it becomes meaningless?
No, I think it’s something we admit.
Hegemonic, adjective, 1. Leading; controlling; ruling; predominant.
Every culture has a past, probably hegemonic at one point or another. That doesn’t make it right, just a fact of existence, and one we should acknowledge and probably try to curb.
oh yes that I clearly understand, and know. The US is hegemonic, and maybe that is why it needs to find another one to push on.
China is not one. You have to look at what it does (and understand why they do what they do), and not necessarily at what it says or admits to.
Frankly I don’t even think the US has admitted it is hegemonic.
