Trump 2.0 official thread

G

generalmeng

New Member
Registered Member
iBBz said:
More Trump administration stories by the razor sharp Ben Norton. I love watching US jealousy on display. Communist China this. Communist China that. Waaaaa! Waaaaa!
Click to expand...
can I get a TLDR?

the video is one hour long.

I asked chatgpt to do it for me. i didnt watch the video, would some one who watched the whole thing verify the content?


Detailed Analysis of JD Vance’s Discussion on Globalization​


JD Vance’s excerpt critiques the long-held assumption about globalization—that wealthier nations would dominate high-value activities like design and innovation while outsourcing lower-value manufacturing tasks to poorer nations. He challenges this notion by highlighting the unintended consequences of globalization, particularly how manufacturing hubs eventually develop strong design and innovation capabilities, shifting the competitive landscape. Below is a more detailed breakdown of his argument:



1. The Initial Premise of Globalization​


  • The belief behind globalization was that wealthier nations, particularly the United States, would move "up the value chain."
  • This meant they would focus on high-tech design, research, and development, while less developed nations would handle simpler, labor-intensive manufacturing.
  • A common example of this idea was the label on Apple’s iPhone boxes: "Designed in Cupertino, California"—implying that while high-value innovation was happening in the U.S., production occurred overseas.


2. The Flawed Assumption and Its Consequences​


  • Vance argues that this assumption was shortsighted because it underestimated the ability of manufacturing regions to develop their own expertise.
  • Instead of remaining as mere producers, regions like China, South Korea, and Taiwan have rapidly advanced in design and technology, directly competing with American and Western firms.
  • For example, companies such as Huawei, Xiaomi, and Samsung started as manufacturers but have now become leaders in innovation.


3. Economic and Strategic Risks for the U.S.​


  • The shift in design and innovation to manufacturing hubs has contributed to economic stagnation and job losses in Western countries.
  • Vance suggests that the U.S. outsourced not only production but also its ability to innovate in certain industries.
  • Over-reliance on foreign manufacturing has made the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • There is also a national security risk, as critical industries (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing) are now controlled by foreign powers.


4. Implications for Policy and the Economy​


  • Vance’s argument aligns with growing calls for reindustrialization in the U.S.
  • He advocates for policies that support domestic manufacturing, protect intellectual property, and reduce dependency on foreign supply chains.
  • This could include tax incentives, tariffs, and investments in domestic infrastructure to bring jobs and innovation back to the U.S.


Key Takeaways​


  1. Globalization did not work as expected—manufacturing regions became strong in design and innovation.
  2. The U.S. lost its competitive edge by offshoring too much production.
  3. Economic risks include job losses and reliance on foreign supply chains.
  4. National security risks arise from dependence on other nations for critical goods.
  5. Reindustrialization is necessary to regain economic strength and innovation leadership.


Final Thoughts​


JD Vance’s argument aligns with a broader debate on economic nationalism versus free trade. His perspective reflects growing concerns that unrestricted globalization has weakened American industry. As geopolitical tensions rise, his ideas resonate with policymakers pushing for a more self-sufficient and resilient economy.
 
Last edited:
E

Eventine

Junior Member
Registered Member
Trump & Vance are simply trying to stay the inevitable decadence that awaits all great empires at the end of their cycles. They will not succeed, because decadence is the result of deep institutional, cultural, even biological rot.

Prosperity and abundance create "weak" societies by way of preventing natural evolution from indexing on "strength." Such societies are characterized by entitlement, laziness, parasitism, nepotism, ignorance, and ideological rigidity - all characteristics of modern America.

They are dominated by charismatic show men with little substance and character, and populated by adult children. Possessing neither the ruggedness nor the stoicism necessary to overcome hardship, they become resentful, believing the world "owes" them success, wealth, love, etc. They inevitably turn on the people - particularly immigrants - who do have those qualities and who are instrumental to the US's power.

Decadence cannot be rolled back. It can only be accelerated. Through collapse, hard times, and evolutionary culling, societies will - if they are not conquered or destroyed - eventually emerge from decadence, with a new culture built on the tried and true principles of meritocracy, hard work, and family values. Thus, the start of a new cycle.

But the key here is - you have to fall, before you can rise again. China did its falling a hundred years ago. The US needs another hundred before it can begin again.
 
I

iewgnem

Senior Member
Registered Member
generalmeng said:
can I get a TLDR?

the video is one hour long.

I asked chatgpt to do it for me. i didnt watch the video, would some one who watched the whole thing verify the content?


Detailed Analysis of JD Vance’s Discussion on Globalization​


JD Vance’s excerpt critiques the long-held assumption about globalization—that wealthier nations would dominate high-value activities like design and innovation while outsourcing lower-value manufacturing tasks to poorer nations. He challenges this notion by highlighting the unintended consequences of globalization, particularly how manufacturing hubs eventually develop strong design and innovation capabilities, shifting the competitive landscape. Below is a more detailed breakdown of his argument:



1. The Initial Premise of Globalization​


  • The belief behind globalization was that wealthier nations, particularly the United States, would move "up the value chain."
  • This meant they would focus on high-tech design, research, and development, while less developed nations would handle simpler, labor-intensive manufacturing.
  • A common example of this idea was the label on Apple’s iPhone boxes: "Designed in Cupertino, California"—implying that while high-value innovation was happening in the U.S., production occurred overseas.


2. The Flawed Assumption and Its Consequences​


  • Vance argues that this assumption was shortsighted because it underestimated the ability of manufacturing regions to develop their own expertise.
  • Instead of remaining as mere producers, regions like China, South Korea, and Taiwan have rapidly advanced in design and technology, directly competing with American and Western firms.
  • For example, companies such as Huawei, Xiaomi, and Samsung started as manufacturers but have now become leaders in innovation.


3. Economic and Strategic Risks for the U.S.​


  • The shift in design and innovation to manufacturing hubs has contributed to economic stagnation and job losses in Western countries.
  • Vance suggests that the U.S. outsourced not only production but also its ability to innovate in certain industries.
  • Over-reliance on foreign manufacturing has made the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • There is also a national security risk, as critical industries (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing) are now controlled by foreign powers.


4. Implications for Policy and the Economy​


  • Vance’s argument aligns with growing calls for reindustrialization in the U.S.
  • He advocates for policies that support domestic manufacturing, protect intellectual property, and reduce dependency on foreign supply chains.
  • This could include tax incentives, tariffs, and investments in domestic infrastructure to bring jobs and innovation back to the U.S.


Key Takeaways​


  1. Globalization did not work as expected—manufacturing regions became strong in design and innovation.
  2. The U.S. lost its competitive edge by offshoring too much production.
  3. Economic risks include job losses and reliance on foreign supply chains.
  4. National security risks arise from dependence on other nations for critical goods.
  5. Reindustrialization is necessary to regain economic strength and innovation leadership.


Final Thoughts​


JD Vance’s argument aligns with a broader debate on economic nationalism versus free trade. His perspective reflects growing concerns that unrestricted globalization has weakened American industry. As geopolitical tensions rise, his ideas resonate with policymakers pushing for a more self-sufficient and resilient economy.
Click to expand...
Even in a fictional world where US has the exact same government and demographics as China, they still only have 1/4 of China's population

But they don't even have government or culture or demographic, they have a feudal society ruled by an ethno-religious cult that does not consider the population to be their own people, their culture celebrates corruption, stupidity and psychopathy, and their demographic is, let's just say it, majority not Chinese.

There is no universe in which US can compete with China, which is why they're will and are inevitably arriving at the conclusion that war is their only hope.
 
I

iBBz

Junior Member
Registered Member
generalmeng said:
can I get a TLDR?

the video is one hour long.

I asked chatgpt to do it for me. i didnt watch the video, would some one who watched the whole thing verify the content?


Detailed Analysis of JD Vance’s Discussion on Globalization​


JD Vance’s excerpt critiques the long-held assumption about globalization—that wealthier nations would dominate high-value activities like design and innovation while outsourcing lower-value manufacturing tasks to poorer nations. He challenges this notion by highlighting the unintended consequences of globalization, particularly how manufacturing hubs eventually develop strong design and innovation capabilities, shifting the competitive landscape. Below is a more detailed breakdown of his argument:



1. The Initial Premise of Globalization​


  • The belief behind globalization was that wealthier nations, particularly the United States, would move "up the value chain."
  • This meant they would focus on high-tech design, research, and development, while less developed nations would handle simpler, labor-intensive manufacturing.
  • A common example of this idea was the label on Apple’s iPhone boxes: "Designed in Cupertino, California"—implying that while high-value innovation was happening in the U.S., production occurred overseas.


2. The Flawed Assumption and Its Consequences​


  • Vance argues that this assumption was shortsighted because it underestimated the ability of manufacturing regions to develop their own expertise.
  • Instead of remaining as mere producers, regions like China, South Korea, and Taiwan have rapidly advanced in design and technology, directly competing with American and Western firms.
  • For example, companies such as Huawei, Xiaomi, and Samsung started as manufacturers but have now become leaders in innovation.


3. Economic and Strategic Risks for the U.S.​


  • The shift in design and innovation to manufacturing hubs has contributed to economic stagnation and job losses in Western countries.
  • Vance suggests that the U.S. outsourced not only production but also its ability to innovate in certain industries.
  • Over-reliance on foreign manufacturing has made the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • There is also a national security risk, as critical industries (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing) are now controlled by foreign powers.


4. Implications for Policy and the Economy​


  • Vance’s argument aligns with growing calls for reindustrialization in the U.S.
  • He advocates for policies that support domestic manufacturing, protect intellectual property, and reduce dependency on foreign supply chains.
  • This could include tax incentives, tariffs, and investments in domestic infrastructure to bring jobs and innovation back to the U.S.


Key Takeaways​


  1. Globalization did not work as expected—manufacturing regions became strong in design and innovation.
  2. The U.S. lost its competitive edge by offshoring too much production.
  3. Economic risks include job losses and reliance on foreign supply chains.
  4. National security risks arise from dependence on other nations for critical goods.
  5. Reindustrialization is necessary to regain economic strength and innovation leadership.


Final Thoughts​


JD Vance’s argument aligns with a broader debate on economic nationalism versus free trade. His perspective reflects growing concerns that unrestricted globalization has weakened American industry. As geopolitical tensions rise, his ideas resonate with policymakers pushing for a more self-sufficient and resilient economy.
Click to expand...
People ask AI to watch videos for them now? I just can't anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top