Biden Foreign Policy

[TGHusker]

As a part time adjunct professor at a local Univ, one of my regular courses that I taught was Global Business Environment.  I have always thought that the globalization of the past 30 years had a good side and a bad side.  The good side:  It binds all countries together in trade. Which builds relationships.  The bad side: It binds all countries together in trade - it limits our potential and increases dependency.   Before WW 2, approx 94% of what we consumed in the USA was made in the USA. It allowed us to build and industry that freed the world from tyranny.   We have now built an economy that is heavily dependent on countries that have governmental philosophies that totally opposed to ours.   Time to rethink how we define globalism.  China's military has largely been built by the monies that flow into that country from democratic countries which are opposed to their communistic type of govt. Europe has been dependent on Russian gas.   Perhaps in the future we will concentrate on doing more trade with like minded free countries and countries in our own hemisphere - which could have as a byproduct fewer economic immigrants coming out way and crossing our boarders illegally. 

Let us not forget: 

It was Lenin who said: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

 

 

End of Globalization as we Know It

 

Quote

 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has ended globalization as we know it, says the head of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink told shareholders in a letter on Thursday that Russia's "decoupling from the global economy" following its assault on Ukraine has caused governments and companies to examine their reliance on other nations.

"The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades," Fink wrote.

The CEO, whose company manages $10 trillion in assets, predicted that Russia's isolation will "prompt companies and governments worldwide to reevaluate their dependencies and reanalyze their manufacturing and assembly footprints."

But some countries could benefit from focusing on building up their domestic industries, as companies onshore or "nearshore" their operations, he said.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Early in the pandemic, countries struggled to secure desperately needed personal protective equipment made in China. When economies reopened — and demand surged — supply-chain bottlenecks helped push inflation up to levels not seen in decades. A shortage of semiconductor chips, in particular, has plagued industries over the past year, from carmakers to tech companies.

And now Russia's assault on Ukraine — followed by swift and punishing Western sanctions and a raft of company exits — has disrupted international export markets. The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark, surged above $139 a barrel in early March as buyers feared supply shocks, though oil has since come down.

"Energy security has joined the energy transition as a top global priority," Fink said.

While Fink anticipates that coal consumption may increase over the next year as Europe and Asia try to wean themselves off Russian oil and gas, soaring energy prices will likely make renewables more competitive, he said.

"Longer-term, I believe that recent events will actually accelerate the shift toward greener sources of energy in many parts of the world," Fink wrote.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

As a part time adjunct professor at a local Univ, one of my regular courses that I taught was Global Business Environment.  I have always thought that the globalization of the past 30 years had a good side and a bad side.  The good side:  It binds all countries together in trade. Which builds relationships.  The bad side: It binds all countries together in trade - it limits our potential and increases dependency.   Before WW 2, approx 94% of what we consumed in the USA was made in the USA. It allowed us to build and industry that freed the world from tyranny.   We have now built an economy that is heavily dependent on countries that have governmental philosophies that totally opposed to ours.   Time to rethink how we define globalism.  China's military has largely been built by the monies that flow into that country from democratic countries which are opposed to their communistic type of govt. Europe has been dependent on Russian gas.   Perhaps in the future we will concentrate on doing more trade with like minded free countries and countries in our own hemisphere - which could have as a byproduct fewer economic immigrants coming out way and crossing our boarders illegally. 

Let us not forget: 

It was Lenin who said: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

 

 

End of Globalization as we Know It

 

 

 

 

 

There might be a good side and a bad side to globalization, but there is no way of stopping it.  Sure, we can do it better.  But, in no way shape or form are we going back to anything like pre WWII. So many of our industries need resources from around the world and we also need markets around the world for the products we make.  It's just a fact of life.

 

Now, I would LOVE for us to do more business with countries in our hemisphere.   It would be great for us to build up central American countries so that their economies are strong and the governments can fight the crime organizations that ravage those countries.  But, the fact is, the only resource they have is people for labor.  Which is important, but they don't have the natural resources that a country like China has.

 

Therefore, there is no way for them to be as successful as China has been with industrialization. 

[TGHusker]

17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

There might be a good side and a bad side to globalization, but there is no way of stopping it.  Sure, we can do it better.  But, in no way shape or form are we going back to anything like pre WWII. So many of our industries need resources from around the world and we also need markets around the world for the products we make.  It's just a fact of life.

 

Now, I would LOVE for us to do more business with countries in our hemisphere.   It would be great for us to build up central American countries so that their economies are strong and the governments can fight the crime organizations that ravage those countries.  But, the fact is, the only resource they have is people for labor.  Which is important, but they don't have the natural resources that a country like China has.

 

Therefore, there is no way for them to be as successful as China has been with industrialization. 

All of your points are true and valid.  I never envisioned we'd go back to pre WW2 days - the genie has been left out of the bottle.  Perhaps it is a matter of evaluation of our assumptions.  One being that globalization would tame man's desire to dominate other men - dictators will remain dictators even if they now gain power through a more capitalistic economic system.  Some have say that the Chinese have become better capitalists than the Americans - using it for their ends while the govt remains unchanged. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[GSG]

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Those must all be s#!t hole countries 

 

*rimshot*

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Archy1221]

Looking forward to the same level of vitriol as we saw towards the prior administration received.  
 

 

[RedDenver]

On 6/11/2022 at 6:51 AM, Archy1221 said:

Looking forward to the same level of vitriol as we saw towards the prior administration received.  
 

 

It's certainly weak-sauce from Biden and his admin but I've thought Biden was weak from back when he was in the primary, so no surprise. But if we really want to have dealt with this issue, it should have been when it happened, but that admin was also weak, so no surprise they did nothing too.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[DevoHusker]

But...but...

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

57 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

But...but...

 

 

 

I don’t like it either. OPEC has to start producing more oil. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

But...but...

 

 

 

Different standards for different parties in charge as far as the media is concerned. 

[Moiraine]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Different standards for different parties in charge as far as the media is concerned. 

 

 

What is your problem with the coverage?

[ZRod]

4 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

But...but...

 

 

 

This is what you get with the Petro dollar and extreme fuel prices...

[Dr. Strangelove]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Different standards for different parties in charge as far as the media is concerned. 

I trust you would vote for Biden if he holds firm in his resolve and will not criticize gas prices in any way if he cancels this trip.