So … we weren’t to far off …
3 Likes
5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Home Projects and Gardening
This is thematically the same as saying in ‘tug of war’ there is a winner and there is a loser - there are two opposing sides.
Yes. We all agree.
But this does not address the mountains of discussions that discusses foundational/structural issues: actual impacts vs claims of intended outcome.
4 Likes
It cannot because winners and losers will always disagree on the effects.
The intended outcome is fewer imports leading to greater domestic manufacturing and production. The first part is occurring. The funding for increased manufacturing is being committed by many companies. Whether the factories are built and operate is to be seen,
Obviously, there are other obstacles and obstructions to the desired goal. US mining of rare earth minerals has a large group of opponents who will do all they can to prevent it from happening. That is non-controversial or should be - whether the actual mining is controversial.
Losers feel the effects before the big winners do. Whether the country wins is determined by economic measures which many challenge the interpretation of.
See how short an impact the additional 100% tariff on China had on the stock market and many individual stocks.
See how the chaos around the tariffs has affected the stock market - the trend remains upward in spite of increased volatility.
The only valid judgement of success will be months or years from now.
2 Likes
But winners and losers who are playing the same game will have to concede on the objective and result of the game.
Before we get lost in the weeds on abstractions - let’s first agree on definitions and outcomes.
What drives the economy, what drives infrastructure, where we are and where we’re headed at our present course. If there are other foundational concerns/critiques, bring them forth. Otherwise, we’re always going to bob and weave around the grand 100 year plan that seems to exist in some black book somewhere in Valhalla.
4 Likes
I thought that the intended outcome was to stop the flow of Fentanyl into the country. Are you saying that we need to make more Fentanyl here in the US???
Of course, there are the non-Fentanyl issues, such as supporting the American banana, cocoa, and coffee growers (granted, Kona coffee is top notch, but they can’t replace Costa Rica; and even after tariffs, are still more expensive).
Except that the opportunity is largly passed. They are called “rare” earths for a reason; it’s not like iron or zinc that is spread out around the world; while there are a lot of these, they are typically in concentrated areas. China now controls much of this, including most of the large mines in Chile and Bolivia, as well as much of Africa (where they are investing HUGE amounts of money for infrastructure). We can’t just move Cobalt and Lithium mining to the US, when we don’t have large reserves of Cobalt or Lithium to begin with. But yeah; piss off the people who have them…
(although I’m confused; many of these rare earths are used to make things like EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels, all things that the current rule makers deem as bad; if these things are so terrible, why throw a hissy-fit if we suddenly can’t get the things that are need to make the products that we don’t want in the first place?)
I won’t add more, suspecting that I may have already crossed the line after several glasses of rum (all US made, for the record) (I won’t be offended if mods delete).
3 Likes
Actually that linked story did a pretty good job of BURYING the latest roadblock.
If this plant never gets built the issue will be from the USA and not Korea.
" More than 300 Koreans detained by ICE at Georgia Hyundai plant heading home "
2 Likes
Yes but that wasn’t the lead - I think everyone knows what happened to them. The point was the timeline of one of these very large promissory notes that keeps being bandied about to defend extreme ignorance in trade/policy. Every single thing can be googled or Ai’d - to see the massive layers of gross incompetence.
2 Likes
There are known deposits of rare earth minerals within the US whose mining has been prohibited because of concerns held by a portion of the population.
Mining of anything is frowned upon by people of some beliefs.
Not all mining is as offensive as strip mining or as bad for the local environment.
3 Likes
I drive a Hyundai and it is the 6th or 7th we have leased.
Hyundai is now the No. 3 automaker in the US market.
It is not going away. It is not cutting back. It may like other automakers reduce its EV commitment but that Georgia plant is a money maker and will grow.
My current Hyundai might be my last. I hate the electronic suspension on my current vehicle, I am hoping a software upgrade will soften the suspension to be what the previous mechanical suspension provided.
2 Likes
The UN’s International Maritime Organization has backed off on its shipping tax. Perhaps until next year.
2 Likes
The mining of the materials has not been the core issue, it has been the post processing that has been where the lack of investments has been along with the increased waste tailings concerns. We don’t use socialism to prop up entire industrial bases and to capture market share like China does… Well, except for defense and oil manufacturing and soon agriculture and probably others if soybeans tell us anything. You know, free market competition and all that stuff.
Rare earth materials are usually up -refined from other mining deposits like copper of which there are various mines in both the U.S. and … Oh never mind, I was going to say Canada, but that is kind of a problem, because of all the Fentanyl coming across the border… SMH
5 Likes
Of course, these newest tariffs are not ON rare earths; they are a response to China limiting the rare earths that they will sell us. So not an effort to shift production to US (as is supposedly the case with all the other tariffs), but rather an attempt to force more imports.
When you only have a hammer, everything is a nail. When your only negotiating tool is tariffs…
2 Likes
The 100% extra tariff is to put China’s economy at risk, as retaliation for its rare earth export controls which put our nation at risk.
We don’t only have a hammer, we also have nukes, but we are unlikely to use them to further our economic interests.
3 Likes
We have a LOT of tools at our disposal. But those in charge are so obsessed with tariffs that none of the other tools even get considered. It might as well be the only hammer; the rest of the toolbox is covered in cobwebs from disuse. Frankly, this “■■■-for-tat” retaliation on both sides is akin to a “who has the biggest package” contest of drunk frat boys.
But on the bright side, the tariffs will help switch consumers to US produced products, which will be a big boon to the American banana, cocoa, and coffee growers.
3 Likes
Well, the good thing is we were smart, and our tariff policies kept our trade alliances with the rest of the world rock solid, preventing China from going elsewhere to do business… Oh wait. We did the opposite of that.
Well, at least we kept our soft power tools available to leverage markets with things like aid in developing countries preventing China from getting a foothold there… Oh wait we got rid of that too.
Don’t forget to add rubber to that list of stuff we can’t make here. I saw this about latex gloves.
4 Likes