Is the West in decline

[Ccb]

Not2big that is so funny .

I expect Tesla to go bust so I wonder what the Chinese will do with the factory?

Things look dour in US and parts of eastern europe . Does anyone have comment on India or other parts of the world that might be considered to follow the western model ?

Importantly does anyone see positive signs anywhere in the world ?

I see many positive signs here in the US. We are taking our country back from the globalists.

 

[not2big]

You are making the point for why we should produce these things here. So we aren't reliant on any other country for materials, supplies and parts. It's a national security issue.

Some countries produce some things more productively, with better quality, and make them available at lower prices. If you prevent the importation of these items, you are forcing US consumers to pay more for lower quality products. If we treat our ally countries with respect instead of Alienating them, you do not have to worry about them withholding vital products.

 

[CUSP82]

Not2big that is so funny .

I expect Tesla to go bust so I wonder what the Chinese will do with the factory?

Things look dour in US and parts of eastern europe . Does anyone have comment on India or other parts of the world that might be considered to follow the western model ?

Importantly does anyone see positive signs anywhere in the world ?

What exactly looks dour? I see none of that. Please explain.

 

[not2big]

What I find as dour is when the government tries to dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. It also doesn’t help when the government follows policies that discourages the brightest minds around the globe from joining scientific, technical, and medical research teams at our leading colleges and universities because they disagree with the way other countries are killing the citizens of third countries under attack.

 

[CUSP82]

How private is a university that takes federal money? Do you think it's good government policy to just give away tax dollars with no control? And poor Harvard;they only are worth about 50 billion dollars so they need my money? Plus they do seem to have discriminated against Asians and Jews so my money should support that?
BLM was given lots of money with no strings; I'm sure you know where most of that went. So you want colleges to take taxpayer money to fund research that they can pay for themselves. Not a good idea; that's how you get to spend $250,000.00 to study how shrimps perform on a treadmill.

 

[not2big]

Most of the government funding goes to scientifoc and medical research which is a benefit to the overall general population, which funding is geared more towards research into medical research and disease prevention. There is no evidence they discriminated against Asians and Jews. In fact, they probably favor those ethnic groups which are more involved in research and education. The University of Michigan was recently denied $750,000 for research into adolescent diabetes and RFK jr admitted he was unaware of the action.

 

[Johnny D]

What I find as dour is when the government tries to dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

The government shouldn't be in the business of education at all. They shouldn't be funding universities at all and then universities wouldn't have to be beholden to them. Such as it is, if you want the government to fund the colleges, you get the bad things you don't like that come along with it.

Let's make sure that you're being consistent, though. Did you also complain when Obama cudgeled colleges into bending to his title IX whims and then when Biden reinstated them? Rules the colleges had to follow which blatantly denied people their constitutional rights? If you're consistent, you did.

How private is a university that takes federal money? Do you think it's good government policy to just give away tax dollars with no control? And poor Harvard;they only are worth about 50 billion dollars so they need my money? Plus they do seem to have discriminated against Asians and Jews so my money should support that?

Ya...what he said! Although I'm not aware of discrimination, but if it's an admissions thing, that wouldn't surprise me one bit.

that's how you get to spend $250,000.00 to study how shrimps perform on a treadmill.

Wait! Is that for real or did you make that up?! That's hilarious!!!

Most of the government funding goes to scientifoc and medical research which is a benefit to the overall general population, which funding is geared more towards research into medical research and disease prevention.

Irrelevant. That's not the role of government. Not to mention... The private sector does all of that WAY better, anyway.

The University of Michigan was recently denied $750,000 for research into adolescent diabetes and RFK jr admitted he was unaware of the action.

They need to go raise funds privately.

 

[Johnny D]

As Adam Schiff used to say the facts are readily apparent to see.
Cars can become more expensive or even not available at all if parts are withheld. How can you build a car if the country you get parts from decides not to sell them to you? How bout a tank? You seem to think the world is just one big happy place and countries will trade based on their interest in making money. That only goes so far; they may get a better offer somewhere else.
Before we became energy independent the Arabs used to love selling us oil. They made lots of money. Then they got mad at us and started an oil embargo. You are probably too young to remember waiting on line for 2-3 hours to get 2 bucks of gas. Talk about supply chain issues; can't have trucks bringing food if there's no fuel.Vacations cancelled,commuters walked a mile or two to get on the train to go to work instead of driving to the station and it was cold.
We get most of our PPE from China. During covid the Chinese didn't have enough for their people so we got put on back order. So who cares if we don't have the stuff we need to protect ourselves; we can just die.If a country can't protect it's people then there is no real need for that country.
We make about 4 % of medication needed to keep some of us alive. Of course the 96% we don't make will always be available to us by the countries that make them right? Can you be sure about that? Would you bet your life on it?
Rare earth minerals; they seem to be important for lots of things including weapons to defend ourselves. China supplies most of the world (although we have vast deposits) but right now the Chinese seem to be mad at us so they won't send us any. Think; dependent on things we need to defend ourselves from our enemy. Not smart.

You have an idea of this world that it's one big happy place and we all need each other to survive. That may be true in a hundred years or so but not now. Most countries are out for themselves as is attested to by their placement of tariffs on things from other countries.
The leader of a country's primary job is to protect the people. How do you protect them if you don't have the medIcine or PPE? How do you protect them is you don't have what's needed for defense weapons?
You cannot be a great nation if your country cannot provide the basics for your people. A great nation must be independent and trade as a luxury and not a necessity.

Even if that were true - and it's not - it's simply impossible. The US is entirely incapable of producing all of its own goods. Even if we just accepted that it's going to be a very expensive place for the consumer (again, our costs are WAAAAAAY too high) but it's essential, so let's do it, we can't. Just think about how many laborers are involved around the world in making everything that we consume. We do not have that many unemployed people to put to work on the job. It would require an estimated 63,000,000 laborers just to make the clothing we import. That's just textiles, alone!

I have no idea, as you say, that the world is one big happy place and there's no indication from anything that I've said that I believe that so don't try to make that my narrative. But the world is a big and intertwined and complex place and turning to isolationism is a certain way create insecurity, rather than security. If you want a world where countries cooperate, you're far better off depending on each other for things than shutting each other out (let alone treating others like enemies).

P.S. Despite the fact that people like to say it, the President's primary job is not to protect the people. Now, plenty of Presidents like to twist parts of their responsibilities into sounding like it's all about "do whatever I have to do to keep the people safe" but that's not how the Founding Fathers set it up. How much did you like it when Biden proclaimed and mandated all kinds of things during Covid in the name of "protect the people"?

You are making the point for why we should produce these things here. So we aren't reliant on any other country for materials, supplies and parts. It's a national security issue.

Nope. Not at all. The point is that we have to rely on others and it's better for everyone involved. China attempted protectionism and isolationism for a very long time a long time ago and they drove a once thriving civilization into poverty. History can be a good teacher or you can ignore it and think you're smarter and that for some reason, this time it'll be different.

 

[not2big]

Irrelevant. That's not the role of government. Not to mention... The private sector does all of that WAY better, anyway.

They need to go raise funds privately.

it’s irrelevant when the government doesn't care about the health and well being of its citizens, especially in light of significant cuts in spending on research conducted by its own NIH and CDC. University research breakthroughs lead to impactful discoveries and innovations made by the researchers at universities, often leading to advancements in various fields and benefiting society. These breakthroughs can range from new drug discoveries to innovative technologies and solutions to global challenges including the following as just a small sample
Columbia University: Research on engineered bacteria to attack cancer and the development of AI for drug discovery.
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT): Research in areas like traumatic brain injury and robotics for space exploration.
Northwestern University: Development of a device to deliver targeted chemotherapy to the brain

i do not consider such breakthroughs irrelevant and were only made possible because of University research teams funded by the government.

Though not in the U.S., it was at the University of Toronto where two researchers funded by the Canadian government developed the practical use of exogenous insulin, which subsequently has saved the lives of millions of people, including my Own.

 

[akaTrex]

What I find as dour is when the government tries to dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. It also doesn’t help when the government follows policies that discourages the brightest minds around the globe from joining scientific, technical, and medical research teams at our leading colleges and universities because they disagree with the way other countries are killing the citizens of third countries under attack.

Fact: Democratic professors outnumber Republican ones by 9 to 1 ratio!
Fact: If a student turns in a Paper/Report with a Conservative/Republican slant, their grades will suffer!

Democratic professors outnumber Republican ones by 9 to 1 ratio, according to new data | The College Fix

Profs donating to Democratic candidates outnumbered those giving to Republicans by 95 to 1 ratio.

www.thecollegefix.com

 

[Johnny D]

it’s irrelevant when the government doesn't care about the health and well being of its citizens, especially in light of significant cuts in spending on research conducted by its own NIH and CDC. University research breakthroughs lead to impactful discoveries and innovations made by the researchers at universities, often leading to advancements in various fields and benefiting society. These breakthroughs can range from new drug discoveries to innovative technologies and solutions to global challenges including the following as just a small sample
Columbia University: Research on engineered bacteria to attack cancer and the development of AI for drug discovery.
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT): Research in areas like traumatic brain injury and robotics for space exploration.
Northwestern University: Development of a device to deliver targeted chemotherapy to the brain

I didn't say the breakthroughs are irrelevant, did I? I said that it isn't relevant what program the US taxpayer's money ended up funding at the university. Just because it's something that you find important doesn't mean that it's the burden of the public to pay for it or the role of the government to ensure that it happens. You just used a whole bunch of words there to make it sound as though the government should own it, which is a very typical strategy - define something as critical and then demand that the government (and the taxpayer) do something about it.

i do not consider such breakthroughs irrelevant and were only made possible because of University research teams funded by the government.

Well that's just plain false. PLENTY of breakthroughs - perhaps even arguably more - happen in the private sector. So.........no.

 

[akaTrex]

Well that's just plain false. PLENTY of breakthroughs - perhaps even arguably more - happen in the private sector. So.........no.

Which US company invented the mouse, fax machine, graphical user interface (GUI), Ethernet technology, laser printers, and the first copier? Steve Jobs once toured Xerox PARC and, after seeing the 685 Star Workstation and realizing that the technology was not patented, he went on to develop the Macintosh. Interestingly, Xerox employees were already sending emails to other company locations as early as 1990!

 

[not2big]

I didn't say the breakthroughs are irrelevant, did I? I said that it isn't relevant what program the US taxpayer's money ended up funding at the university. Just because it's something that you find important doesn't mean that it's the burden of the public to pay for it or the role of the government to ensure that it happens. You just used a whole bunch o

Well that's just plain false. PLENTY of breakthroughs - perhaps even arguably more - happen in the private sector. So.........no.

I believe it is relevant which programs are funded at the Universities. Some are important to the general health and well being of the public , but do not provide enough return on investment unless subsidized by the government, especially in light of Trumps budget plan to dramatically cut by 44%, down from $9.2 billion to $5.2 billion funding for the CDC.. Funding for programs to fight chronic diseases like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and smoking. I guess not many people find those programs relevent.

My point was not that the government did not have breakthroughs, but rather that university programs provided additional breakthroughs that otherwise would not have happened without government funding.

 

[Ccb]

Even if that were true - and it's not - it's simply impossible. The US is entirely incapable of producing all of its own goods. Even if we just accepted that it's going to be a very expensive place for the consumer (again, our costs are WAAAAAAY too high) but it's essential, so let's do it, we can't. Just think about how many laborers are involved around the world in making everything that we consume. We do not have that many unemployed people to put to work on the job. It would require an estimated 63,000,000 laborers just to make the clothing we import. That's just textiles, alone!

I have no idea, as you say, that the world is one big happy place and there's no indication from anything that I've said that I believe that so don't try to make that my narrative. But the world is a big and intertwined and complex place and turning to isolationism is a certain way create insecurity, rather than security. If you want a world where countries cooperate, you're far better off depending on each other for things than shutting each other out (let alone treating others like enemies).

P.S. Despite the fact that people like to say it, the President's primary job is not to protect the people. Now, plenty of Presidents like to twist parts of their responsibilities into sounding like it's all about "do whatever I have to do to keep the people safe" but that's not how the Founding Fathers set it up. How much did you like it when Biden proclaimed and mandated all kinds of things during Covid in the name of "protect the people"?

Nope. Not at all. The point is that we have to rely on others and it's better for everyone involved. China attempted protectionism and isolationism for a very long time a long time ago and they drove a once thriving civilization into poverty. History can be a good teacher or you can ignore it and think you're smarter and that for some reason, this time it'll be different.

I think it was probably their communist dictators that did that.
We HAVE to manufacture our critical supplies in THIS country and not be dependent on other countries who may or may not want to destroy us. FULL STOP

 

[not2big]

Canada and Mexico significantly contribute to US imports, with Canada being a major supplier of many goods, including rare earths. Other countries exporting critical products include South Korea and Germany. I seriously doubt any of these countries are capable of or have any desire to destroy us.

 

[Johnny D]

I believe it is relevant which programs are funded at the Universities. Some are important to the general health and well being of the public , but do not provide enough return on investment unless subsidized by the government, especially in light of Trumps budget plan to dramatically cut by 44%, down from $9.2 billion to $5.2 billion funding for the CDC.. Funding for programs to fight chronic diseases like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and smoking. I guess not many people find those programs relevent.

My point was not that the government did not have breakthroughs, but rather that university programs provided additional breakthroughs that otherwise would not have happened without government funding.

How do you know those breakthroughs wouldn't have happened in the private sector? Just because they DID happen at a university doesn't mean that's the only place they could or would have. It doesn't matter whether they're important - there are many many things that are important to the health and well being of the public. Just because they are, doesn't make it the role of government to fund them.

 

[Johnny D]

I think it was probably their communist dictators that did that.
We HAVE to manufacture our critical supplies in THIS country and not be dependent on other countries who may or may not want to destroy us. FULL STOP

Just because you said "FULL STOP" doesn't make it a strong argument. In fact, it's not.

I'm just about done with this tariff debate (Peg probably would like it to end, since that's not even the premise of his topic, anyway) since I've posed numerous explanations that nobody has bothered to provide counterpoints to. I've asked numerous questions that have gone completely unanswered. That kind of discussion gets nobody anywhere and is exhausting to me. I enjoy a good debate where points and counterpoints are made because I learn from that. But when each of my arguments and questions are ignored, it just means that your all's feet are dug in because of how you feel.

 

[not2big]

Johnny, there have been counterpoints provided for many of your explanations. However, just because you chose not to believe in them because you have your own feet dug in does not mean they were not presented.

 

[Pegasus]

A lot of countries looking at China as a more reasonable trading partner .

Speaking as an Australian we buy far more from the US than we sell to it so the direct effect is a bit meh .
However it is the indirect effect on world trade that will hurt us .

 

[Johnny D]

Johnny, there have been counterpoints provided for many of your explanations. However, just because you chose not to believe in them because you have your own feet dug in does not mean they were not presented.

Nope. You may have provided some but not the others.