Will people buy US made products
At least some people will buy Made in USA
Mike
1 Like
And promise to TRY to be better … from today.
That, IMO, is the gist of US international interactions: help other countries develop successful economies, while also demanding that those countries promote individual rights and freedom.
Is the US perfect? No.
Or, perhaps better said: NO!
But at least our democratic system TRIES.
“Hegemony” is used pejoratively.
But, really, the “concept” is neutral.
Pax Americana is the specific US hegemonic period, and (mostly) is/was based on democratic principles.
Those countries who do NOT value individual rights and freedoms, have developed to the point where they believe they can force their authoritarian brand of hegemony on their neighbors.
All because Pax Americana, paid for by the US (supported by the West) economic engine, gave the world the stability, the incubator, for their development.
ralph
4 Likes
Sure, the demographic who can afford and is willing to drop $320 on a t-shirt, hoodie, and beach shorts will buy American Giant. Here’s another brand - Origin. The founder sounds intense -
“The ideas of the American Dream live in the mind of the dreamer. The American Dream is a mindset, one I’ve always believed in. Eventually, someone has to speak up. Not with words, but with action. Revolution doesn’t have to be a physical campaign. This bruised and battered American Dream needs you and I to believe in it. For me, it was the simple act of saying “NO”. My silent protest to the world, to greed, to communism, to evil… building a factory, and saving a loom. Risking it all on an impossible mission. Embracing the beauty and burden of the unknown, to prove there can be a new WAVE OF FREEDOM. One that injects soul back into this republic and her calloused hands. From Maine, we can once again be the tip of the spear. Shedding a light on America’s abandoned communities and people, to help them, to tell their story, and to once again, like our ancestors, become savage Yankees from New England, taking a stand, to take it back, to inspire a nation, and to change the world.”
Again, if you can afford and are willing to spend over $100 for a zip-up hoodie, you might buy from Origin.
Many Made in the USA brands are quite a bit more expensive and out-of-reach for most who are not affluent.
3 Likes
Check out Filson in Seattle. Love their stuff but it is an arm and a leg.
1 Like
Sadly, Filson was bought out by a private equity company, who concluded it was cheaper to outsource the manufacturing. Only a few items are still made in Seattle, mostly as a tourist attraction.
They haven’t lowered their prices any though.
3 Likes
Ok I was in their store in downtown Seattle near the baseball field about a year ago.
1 Like
USians will spend obscene sums, if it’s fashionable. The local Motown “news” reported on a shoplifting incident a few weeks ago. $10,000 of merch stolen, according to the owner of the business. The video showed the guys scooping up a couple armloads of jeans. The store sells those jeans for $1,000 a pair. The news has been reporting, for years, people being assaulted/killed for a pair of “designer” sunglasses that retail for several hundred dollars.
Steve
1 Like
That sounds critical of the US but defensive of China, for some reason. A little one-sided.
I don’t think any government, the US or China, will claim to be a hegemon, but there’s plenty of discussion of the US being one.
Maybe China doesn’t want to be recognized for growing military, economic, political, and cultural influence?
Saying the US is hegemonic and China is not seems… partisan.
5 Likes
“Plan For A New American Century” for $100 Bob.
Steve
4 Likes
This isn’t about partisanship—just look at the history and the capabilities. The United States annexed Hawaii, occupied Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines, and acquired Puerto Rico and Guam. It later occupied Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and in more recent times, waged extended wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Today, it maintains extensive military bases across Europe, South Korea, Japan, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific. Its Navy operates globally, projecting power in every major region.
By contrast, when has China ever launched an invasion of another country? Its military is overwhelmingly focused on national defense. China has only one overseas military base—in Djibouti—where the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, and Italy also maintain bases for anti-piracy and peacekeeping operations.
The two countries are not comparable in this regard. At present, there is only one global hegemon: the United States. Perhaps the real imbalance the U.S. is now trying to “correct” is precisely that—its own unchallenged dominance. Maybe it needs the idea of a rival -which it knows to be not as strong as itself- to justify remaining one.
We certainly are creating problems for ourselves and we are happily surprised when we ‘solve them’, and win.
During the reign of the Communist regime:
Intervention in the Korean War, October 19, 1950
Invasion of Tibet, October 6, 1950
Invasion of Vietnam, February 17, 1979…forgot about that one, eh?
China hasn’t had the means to project military power far beyond it’s own borders, until the west sold them enough rope.
Steve
4 Likes
I’m not comparing the two, nor discounting what the US has done in the past. What I’m saying is China is hegemonic, regionally at present. We’ll see what the future holds.
1 Like
These are nothing like what the US has done.
And to give context, China did not invade Korea. It went to the help of Korea when McArthur tried to take all of Korea.
Tibet was part of Qing China, and the communists took it back.
The 1979 was a brief border war with complex causes.
You want to compare that with what the US has done? There is no comparison. The situation with Tibet could be loosely compared to a hypothetical scenario where Texas declares independence, and the U.S. federal government responds by sending in troops to prevent secession. They might also do that if California try to do so. But that would be a domestic affair and not a state invading another, would it?
1 Like
That’s history—China has long been the dominant influence in that region. In recent times, that influence waned, but now China is, in some ways, reasserting its historical role.
However, the way China goes about it is fundamentally different from how European or Western powers have typically operated. It doesn’t invade, occupy, or seek to control others in the same manner that Western powers have historically done.
The Thucydides trap and the concepts of hegemonic powers are Western tales and narrations, not Chinese.
Because China has not had the means, until recently.
Steve
3 Likes
Hmmm… “dominant”… sounds hegemonic to me.
1 Like
To understand the present, one must first understand the history. Foreigners came to China bearing tribute—not because they were forced to, but because of China’s immense cultural and political influence. China did not seek to conquer or colonize other lands; on the contrary, it made concerted efforts to keep foreign people, especially from the North and West, beyond its borders. Those who did enter China’s sphere were sinicized—they assimilated into Chinese culture and became part of its civilization.
In addition to the silk road, trade arrived by sea, and before the Europeans came, there was little hostility—aside from the occasional pirate, which shouldn’t be mistaken for European aggression.
That’s the historical record. Today, there is nothing in China’s behavior that mirrors the kinds of interventions or aggressions the United States has carried out abroad. Yet, the U.S. seems determined to cast China as its enemy—not because of any direct threat, but because it needs a rival, a rising power to challenge, an adversary to unite against.
In that sense, isn’t China becoming exactly what René Girard described—a scapegoat? A nation onto which another projects its fears and internal tensions?
1 Like
US corporations produce a significant amount internationally, with many generating a substantial portion of their revenue and holding assets overseas. For example, some large US multinational corporations (MNCs) generate more than two-thirds of their sales outside the United States, with many having a majority of their workforce and assets located internationally.
Dear Andy,
I can not find the Global Net Sales figures for the US. The figure shows the US leading in global sales by a wide margin.
Trump is not looking at those figures. Or he is ignoring them.
Globally everyone buys Made by US Corporations.
Tesla Model Y is the best selling car in the US and the world.
It is the most American car in America.
Thank you for this intelligent exercise, but you don’t need to educate me. I know of China’s long and venerable history, and there is clear evidence of hegemony.
“A country is considered hegemonic when it possesses dominant influence or leadership over others , especially in the realms of economics, military, politics, culture, or ideology.”
China’s is a predominately regional hegemony, now. We’ll see what the future brings.
I think you do the argument a disservice, however, with whataboutism, attempting to distract, diminish, redefine, or eliminate China’s hegemony by comparing it the US. That’s a separate topic, from whether China is hegemonic to what degree they are hegemonic.
Regardless, I hope both the US and China continue to build cooperative peaceful partnerships, beneficial for all.
Peace, brother! (or sister)
5 Likes