It’s good to be Anti-NATO, NATO has Nazi origins and serves as a way to maintain Western Hegemony, securing profits via Imperialism and defending said Imperialism through coalition.
anti globalist, economically it’s just universally bad
Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]
funnily enough my comment was removed, unsure why, pretty sure it was mostly accurate though lol.
I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.
it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.
It’s a give and take, like everything is. But regardless, globalism is generally good for the economy.
it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.
Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.
Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.
yeah idk i’ve seen weird shit happen a few times so far, btw if you’re a mod and remove shit, please tell people why even if its literally just quoting what they said that got it deleted.
Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.
yeah, if you’re a globalism absolutist that would be silly, but tariffs are a useful market force, they allow competition in market sectors that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Farming gets a lot of subsidies for these reasons, and when we’re talking about shit like non essentials a chinese EV specifically, the implications of it on the market are a lot less significant than something like tariffing AA batteries produced outside of america.
The trump admin tariffed canadian lumber imports. Why? There’s a reason they have a lumber industry, it’s because they can do it for cheaper than we can (they have a lot more wooded lands, and a lot less people living there)
yes a 100% tariff on EVs is quite significant, but then again, we have a massive domestic auto manufacturing capability, as well as a general lack of need for “foreign EVs” it might make the market cheaper and more accessible, but that’s coming eventually anyway.
Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.
i’m generally inclined to agree especially on a federal level, IMO i think that tariffs generally have a really subtle market effect, and i think that’s generally the intention of them. They aren’t meant to be massive blanket sweeps. If you really wanted to incentivize people to own EVs you wouldn’t import them at 0% tariff, you would just subsidize owning or buying an EV. You would just make it more accessible, you fund domestic production and development of EVs.
I do not think this is a strong argument. Nobody considers NASA to be the “space Nazis” either, just because some employees had connections with Nazi Germany. It’s a huge leap to claim NATO follows or is connected to some Nazi ideology based on this.
It’s an alliance between Imperialist countries, and the alliance itself has Nazi origins and has had Nazi leaders. Yes, it’s a bad thing, because Imperialism is a bad thing.
It’s a gang of countries that hyper-exploit the Global South in mutual defense against said Global South.
It’s literally only function is a deterrent to war, including by members against others as they will not gain NATO support unless they are attacked.
It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries, and NATO exerts military pressure on the Global South.
Its members might exploit, but thats a meaningless statement about NATO itself because without NATO there would literally be more war.
Bzzzzt wrong. NATO’s only function is to preserve Western Hegemony and dominate the Global South militarily, so that member-States can continue exploiting ruthlessly unopposed. This results in proxy wars, such as the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries
this isn’t super accurate, joining nato has some pretty strict requirements, and besides yeeting NATO would be like the west completely nuking china and russia because “they did a human rights violation” it’s just a dogwhistle lmao.
George Washington U’s National Security Archive 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardU.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Nato is as much a “mutual defense” pact as sea lions are lions. These guys bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and countless other nations. The members of Nato have repeatedly cooperated with each other, using the military networks built through the alliance to wage proxy wars, perform coups, destabilise regions of the world at a scale never before seen in human history.
You might as well call the axis a mutual defense alliance lmao.
I’ve got bad news for you: a lot of us are anti-NATO.
Also, what the hell is anti-trade? Do you want every Westphalian state to build a wall around itself?
Edit to add: Oh I see, you created this new account because @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today got permabanned from lemmy.ml 😂 Let’s see how long this one lasts…
Ah yes, free trade, the thing that improved the economies of ex-communist countries after the USSRs collapse and is on the path to fixing almost every African nations poverty.
Ah yes, NATO, the “we will only call for (and maybe possibly do something to enforce) human rights if it’s convenient for us” alliance. And I’m sure all it’s member nations have squeaky clean track records when it comes to international politics.
We must ban anyone against these things! That’s dangerous extremist ideology
Are you referring to the coalition of some NATO members and some non-NATO members (19 nations total) enforcing a United Nations Security Council decision to make an immediate ceasefire and end the civil war in Libya?
The one with zero troops on the ground?
Being in NATO had no impact on the events, NATO member support was not mandatory as per the terms of NATO. The only reason they even call it a NATO operarion was because Itally would only vote in favor of the operation if NATO members were in charge instead of France.
The reason for NATO’s involvement is quite irrelevant because they were still happy to step in and do the work. The fact is that it was ultimately NATO-led and their efforts did not lead to peace in the region.
To call NATO’s involvement in Libya ‘anti-war’ is sheer lunacy.
And those harmful ideologies are.?
White Supremacy, Anti-immigrant, Anti-Trade, Anti-NATO, Anti-human-rights for LGBT, etc.
What does this mean?
It’s good to be Anti-NATO, NATO has Nazi origins and serves as a way to maintain Western Hegemony, securing profits via Imperialism and defending said Imperialism through coalition.
Removed by mod
Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]
funnily enough my comment was removed, unsure why, pretty sure it was mostly accurate though lol.
it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.
It’s a give and take, like everything is. But regardless, globalism is generally good for the economy.
It is weird that your comment was removed.
Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.
Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.
yeah idk i’ve seen weird shit happen a few times so far, btw if you’re a mod and remove shit, please tell people why even if its literally just quoting what they said that got it deleted.
yeah, if you’re a globalism absolutist that would be silly, but tariffs are a useful market force, they allow competition in market sectors that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Farming gets a lot of subsidies for these reasons, and when we’re talking about shit like non essentials a chinese EV specifically, the implications of it on the market are a lot less significant than something like tariffing AA batteries produced outside of america.
The trump admin tariffed canadian lumber imports. Why? There’s a reason they have a lumber industry, it’s because they can do it for cheaper than we can (they have a lot more wooded lands, and a lot less people living there)
yes a 100% tariff on EVs is quite significant, but then again, we have a massive domestic auto manufacturing capability, as well as a general lack of need for “foreign EVs” it might make the market cheaper and more accessible, but that’s coming eventually anyway.
i’m generally inclined to agree especially on a federal level, IMO i think that tariffs generally have a really subtle market effect, and i think that’s generally the intention of them. They aren’t meant to be massive blanket sweeps. If you really wanted to incentivize people to own EVs you wouldn’t import them at 0% tariff, you would just subsidize owning or buying an EV. You would just make it more accessible, you fund domestic production and development of EVs.
Are you denying the connections between NATO leaders and the Third Reich?
I do not think this is a strong argument. Nobody considers NASA to be the “space Nazis” either, just because some employees had connections with Nazi Germany. It’s a huge leap to claim NATO follows or is connected to some Nazi ideology based on this.
brother every ethnic german in the world has ties with the third reich.
They were literal Nazi Party members. Read the article.
yeah and so was that one guy that spoke at the one thing in canada, the entirety of canada is now tied with nazis.
They were leaders of NATO, not speaking at a NATO event.
You’re working overtime to normalize Nazism.
Lmao
Mutual defense and deterrent to invasion by hostile world powers both in and outside of NATO is a bad thing? Sure, okay pal.
It’s an alliance between Imperialist countries, and the alliance itself has Nazi origins and has had Nazi leaders. Yes, it’s a bad thing, because Imperialism is a bad thing.
It’s a gang of countries that hyper-exploit the Global South in mutual defense against said Global South.
it’s lemmyworld… they’ll never learn that they aren’t on reddit anymore.
It’s literally only function is a deterrent to war, including by members against others as they will not gain NATO support unless they are attacked.
Its members might exploit, but thats a meaningless statement about NATO itself because without NATO there would literally be more war.
It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries, and NATO exerts military pressure on the Global South.
Bzzzzt wrong. NATO’s only function is to preserve Western Hegemony and dominate the Global South militarily, so that member-States can continue exploiting ruthlessly unopposed. This results in proxy wars, such as the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
this isn’t super accurate, joining nato has some pretty strict requirements, and besides yeeting NATO would be like the west completely nuking china and russia because “they did a human rights violation” it’s just a dogwhistle lmao.
Its not expansionist because you have to request to join.
The only objecting countries whose wishes you’re referring to are nations who want to invade potential NATO members.
Bzzzzt wrong. NATO is expansionist because it pressures non-member states and routinely starts proxy wars.
Bzzzzzt wrong. Western Hegemony damages the Global South and NATO keeps member-states unaccountable.
deleted by creator
.
Also, don’t send us reports just because you don’t agree with someone. We’re not here to censor people for you.
Oh no! So you want to talk about how the mutual self defence pact is somehow oppressing you or will you just keep dodging forever?
Nato is as much a “mutual defense” pact as sea lions are lions. These guys bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and countless other nations. The members of Nato have repeatedly cooperated with each other, using the military networks built through the alliance to wage proxy wars, perform coups, destabilise regions of the world at a scale never before seen in human history.
You might as well call the axis a mutual defense alliance lmao.
What alt accounts? What are you even talking about? That’s two bullshit reports in one day, wasting our time.
You like warmongers NATO?
I’ve got bad news for you: a lot of us are anti-NATO.
Also, what the hell is anti-trade? Do you want every Westphalian state to build a wall around itself?
Edit to add: Oh I see, you created this new account because @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today got permabanned from lemmy.ml 😂 Let’s see how long this one lasts…
A lot of X Users support ending all trade relations with China via heavy tarriffs.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ah yes, free trade, the thing that improved the economies of ex-communist countries after the USSRs collapse and is on the path to fixing almost every African nations poverty.
Ah yes, NATO, the “we will only call for (and maybe possibly do something to enforce) human rights if it’s convenient for us” alliance. And I’m sure all it’s member nations have squeaky clean track records when it comes to international politics.
We must ban anyone against these things! That’s dangerous extremist ideology
Who do you think are supporting those?
Elon Musk, owner of Xitter
The fuck is that question?
In context of lemmy… Really quick to anger
Well I certainly could make comparisons but thats a little irrelevnt. The core of my statement is that Lemmy doesn’t operate the way Twitter does.
For me “the fuck is that question” is just a colloquial expression of confusion, not anger.
A “harmful ideology”? Is someone paying you to spout this propaganda?
NATO’s only function is mutual defense, NATO support ends when a member attacks.
Since the only thing NATO does is prevent War, the only anti-NATO stance is a pro-war stance.
The invasion of Libya was a NATO-led effort.
Stop lying.
Are you referring to the coalition of some NATO members and some non-NATO members (19 nations total) enforcing a United Nations Security Council decision to make an immediate ceasefire and end the civil war in Libya?
The one with zero troops on the ground?
Being in NATO had no impact on the events, NATO member support was not mandatory as per the terms of NATO. The only reason they even call it a NATO operarion was because Itally would only vote in favor of the operation if NATO members were in charge instead of France.
The reason for NATO’s involvement is quite irrelevant because they were still happy to step in and do the work. The fact is that it was ultimately NATO-led and their efforts did not lead to peace in the region.
To call NATO’s involvement in Libya ‘anti-war’ is sheer lunacy.