Imagine typing all that out and feeling smart. Like, unironically saying, ‘Are you implying that countries NEED to trade with USA to be successful?’ in a post where you’re being descriptive of world power dynamics. That is absolutely wild to me. Yes, dickhead, the international community needs to trade with each other to enjoy modern luxuries. Our entire way of life is built on international trade, if not ruthless exploitation from the imperial core.
A poor capitalist country in a communist global community would struggle with resources just as much as any poor socialist country does today.
Some people’s perception of world politics and ideology is exactly as complicated as a game of Civilization. 4X games in general are probably the extent of liberal world analysis. Explore. Expand. Exploit. Exterminate. Anything not explicitly attempting to accomplish that in the most efficient way possible is clearly non-valid.
This reminds me of arguing with my father. He always claims that since products could just be moved through an intermediary country to bypass sanctions and markets are efficient and equalizing, that embargoes and sanctions were meaningless gestures. His proof was when he was sourcing parts for a machine he was designing at work, one of the options was to buy an Iranian part with a Chinese firm as a middle man. So since he could still get Iranian parts, the sanctions meant nothing.
Does that not increase the price of the product compared to if he was allowed to trade with Iran directly, basically enriching China (in this example) at Iran and his expense? Like, I think they’re an ineffective method of political pressure (locals usually blame the party doing the sanctioning, not their local government), but I don’t think they do nothing.
Exactly, it does undermine trade and make any products that go through more expensive/less lucrative. Back filling my understanding of his logic, the fact that they could get around the sanctions at all, then there could be competition of being the firm acting as the middleman and they also have to be competitive with non-sanctioned nations, which means that the extra expense would become negligible.
I think historically that has not been the case. But also libertarian market worshippers tend to eschew actual data in favour of perfectly spherical corporate entities with lines tending towards infinity.
Exactly, I was recounting arguments where I disagree with him and this was his explanation as why Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are poor because of socialism, since the sanctions and embargoes could have nothing to do with it.
Like, unironically saying, ‘Are you implying that countries NEED to trade with USA to be successful?’
Might be worth noting that the non-existent embargo applies to foreign businesses and ports of trade. So if you’re shipping out of Veracruz, you’re subject to the same sanctions if you let a ship transiting to Cuba dock there.
It isn’t just a US embargo but a kind of financial blockade. Or would be, if such a thing were in fact a part of US trade law.
A poor capitalist country in a communist global community would struggle with resources just as much as any poor socialist country does today.
I don’t think they would. Taiwan, Australia, and the Philippines are all hyper-capitalist. None of them struggle in the same way as Cuba. But that’s because China’s not trying to export it’s finance system as a means of global economic control.
China also continues to do enormous amounts of trade with Taiwan. Far from an embargo, China’s strategy is to embrace Taiwan with every ounce of economy it can intermingle
a communist global community would struggle with resources just as much as any poor socialist country does today.
I don’t think they would. Taiwan, Australia, and the Philippines are all hyper-capitalist.
But Taiwan, Australia, and the Philippines are all in a Capitalist global community and not banned from trading with the majority of the world’s resources? There isn’t a Communist Global Community atm
But Taiwan, Australia, and the Philippines are all in a Capitalist global community
They’re in a mixed community, with a bias towards the regional heavyweight - Communist China. Australia’s biggest trading partner - accounting for 26% of their total import/export mark - is China. Taiwan is closer to 50%. And these are on essentials like energy and agriculture. Stuff you can’t just start sourcing from half a world away, if you decide you’d rather do business exclusively with a capitalist state like the US or Germany.
There isn’t a Communist Global Community atm
There isn’t any uniform Global Community. The largest industrial economy in the world is Communist. The largest financial economy in the world is Capitalist. And trade flows between them all in a web too tight to separate.
What puts Cuba at a disadvantage relative to, say, Vietnam or North Korea or Venezuela, is that it is a meager 90 miles from a global superpower intent on its destruction. Cuba is a country under siege in a way no other communist state can claim to be. Even the USSR was not put under the kind of concentrated pressure that the Cubans endured.
Taiwan would be in a similar predicament if it were subject to the kind of naked hostility that the US inflicts on Cuba. Imagine China threatening to cut off all trade to Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines if they failed to abide by the Chinese embargo of the Taiwanese island. Which way would these countries ultimately bend under that kind of pressure?
I feel like the OP example was if 99% of the world’s wealth (or something) was in Communist hands and they had a vested interest in excluding Australia, not that Communist China exists and does some sort of exclusion. I feel like if the imports and exports for Australia (or whatever) were similar to Cubas per person, Australia would not be as comfortable a place to live. Communist China still engages in the “Capitalist Global Economy”. And, hypothetically, if the command of the global markets were in Communists hands (rather than capitalists), there might be such an embargo. But that isn’t the case right now. A global communist market between nations means that there isn’t a global capitalist market between nations. And if, say, Australia struggled with food and tech access under such circumstances…? idk
I feel like we’re arguing about semantics and definitions of scenarios here, and how such things are judged.
I feel like the OP example was if 99% of the world’s wealth (or something) was in Communist hands
Nothing like that exists in the modern moment. Hell, the whole reason Americans hate Cuba is because this very large and wealthy island isn’t Capitalist, thereby preventing the US from approaching that 99% high score.
I feel like if the imports and exports for Australia (or whatever) were similar to Cubas per person, Australia would not be as comfortable a place to live.
Because Australians would be operating under an embargo that unnaturally deflates their export capacity.
Absolutely worth noting - because if you’re being descriptive of world power you should probably also concede of the huge amount of influence America has, and it should be abundantly obvious to you that they would use that influence to defend their interests. Abundantly obvious if you were being intellectually honest, anyway.
One country is the benefactor of four centuries and five continents of fairly continual colonial looting, one country is one of the victims of that. Hmm, why would people trade with one, not the other, and why would a “legally non-sanction” rule about shipping companies (which are a heavily consolidated industry) not go to Cuba at all? I am very smart.
Imagine typing all that out and feeling smart. Like, unironically saying, ‘Are you implying that countries NEED to trade with USA to be successful?’ in a post where you’re being descriptive of world power dynamics. That is absolutely wild to me. Yes, dickhead, the international community needs to trade with each other to enjoy modern luxuries. Our entire way of life is built on international trade, if not ruthless exploitation from the imperial core. A poor capitalist country in a communist global community would struggle with resources just as much as any poor socialist country does today.
I’m just laughing about the “why isn’t Cuba rich and mighty?” Maybe because the end goal of socialism is not to be specifically rich and powerful?
Some people’s perception of world politics and ideology is exactly as complicated as a game of Civilization. 4X games in general are probably the extent of liberal world analysis. Explore. Expand. Exploit. Exterminate. Anything not explicitly attempting to accomplish that in the most efficient way possible is clearly non-valid.
This reminds me of arguing with my father. He always claims that since products could just be moved through an intermediary country to bypass sanctions and markets are efficient and equalizing, that embargoes and sanctions were meaningless gestures. His proof was when he was sourcing parts for a machine he was designing at work, one of the options was to buy an Iranian part with a Chinese firm as a middle man. So since he could still get Iranian parts, the sanctions meant nothing.
Does that not increase the price of the product compared to if he was allowed to trade with Iran directly, basically enriching China (in this example) at Iran and his expense? Like, I think they’re an ineffective method of political pressure (locals usually blame the party doing the sanctioning, not their local government), but I don’t think they do nothing.
Exactly, it does undermine trade and make any products that go through more expensive/less lucrative. Back filling my understanding of his logic, the fact that they could get around the sanctions at all, then there could be competition of being the firm acting as the middleman and they also have to be competitive with non-sanctioned nations, which means that the extra expense would become negligible.
I think historically that has not been the case. But also libertarian market worshippers tend to eschew actual data in favour of perfectly spherical corporate entities with lines tending towards infinity.
Exactly, I was recounting arguments where I disagree with him and this was his explanation as why Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are poor because of socialism, since the sanctions and embargoes could have nothing to do with it.
I am angered on your behalf.
his argument is basically the geopolitical version of “speeding fines only affect the poor” but presented as if a rebuttal lol.
Might be worth noting that the non-existent embargo applies to foreign businesses and ports of trade. So if you’re shipping out of Veracruz, you’re subject to the same sanctions if you let a ship transiting to Cuba dock there.
It isn’t just a US embargo but a kind of financial blockade. Or would be, if such a thing were in fact a part of US trade law.
I don’t think they would. Taiwan, Australia, and the Philippines are all hyper-capitalist. None of them struggle in the same way as Cuba. But that’s because China’s not trying to export it’s finance system as a means of global economic control.
China also continues to do enormous amounts of trade with Taiwan. Far from an embargo, China’s strategy is to embrace Taiwan with every ounce of economy it can intermingle
But Taiwan, Australia, and the Philippines are all in a Capitalist global community and not banned from trading with the majority of the world’s resources? There isn’t a Communist Global Community atm
They’re in a mixed community, with a bias towards the regional heavyweight - Communist China. Australia’s biggest trading partner - accounting for 26% of their total import/export mark - is China. Taiwan is closer to 50%. And these are on essentials like energy and agriculture. Stuff you can’t just start sourcing from half a world away, if you decide you’d rather do business exclusively with a capitalist state like the US or Germany.
There isn’t any uniform Global Community. The largest industrial economy in the world is Communist. The largest financial economy in the world is Capitalist. And trade flows between them all in a web too tight to separate.
What puts Cuba at a disadvantage relative to, say, Vietnam or North Korea or Venezuela, is that it is a meager 90 miles from a global superpower intent on its destruction. Cuba is a country under siege in a way no other communist state can claim to be. Even the USSR was not put under the kind of concentrated pressure that the Cubans endured.
Taiwan would be in a similar predicament if it were subject to the kind of naked hostility that the US inflicts on Cuba. Imagine China threatening to cut off all trade to Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines if they failed to abide by the Chinese embargo of the Taiwanese island. Which way would these countries ultimately bend under that kind of pressure?
I feel like the OP example was if 99% of the world’s wealth (or something) was in Communist hands and they had a vested interest in excluding Australia, not that Communist China exists and does some sort of exclusion. I feel like if the imports and exports for Australia (or whatever) were similar to Cubas per person, Australia would not be as comfortable a place to live. Communist China still engages in the “Capitalist Global Economy”. And, hypothetically, if the command of the global markets were in Communists hands (rather than capitalists), there might be such an embargo. But that isn’t the case right now. A global communist market between nations means that there isn’t a global capitalist market between nations. And if, say, Australia struggled with food and tech access under such circumstances…? idk
I feel like we’re arguing about semantics and definitions of scenarios here, and how such things are judged.
PS: I’m kinda drunk right now. What’s going on?
Nothing like that exists in the modern moment. Hell, the whole reason Americans hate Cuba is because this very large and wealthy island isn’t Capitalist, thereby preventing the US from approaching that 99% high score.
Because Australians would be operating under an embargo that unnaturally deflates their export capacity.
And so I cry sometimes when I’m lying in bed
Just to get it all out, what’s in my head
And I, I am feeling a little peculiar
Absolutely worth noting - because if you’re being descriptive of world power you should probably also concede of the huge amount of influence America has, and it should be abundantly obvious to you that they would use that influence to defend their interests. Abundantly obvious if you were being intellectually honest, anyway.
One country is the benefactor of four centuries and five continents of fairly continual colonial looting, one country is one of the victims of that. Hmm, why would people trade with one, not the other, and why would a “legally non-sanction” rule about shipping companies (which are a heavily consolidated industry) not go to Cuba at all? I am very smart.