Because part of conservatism is the idea that hierarchies based on who your parents are, and the fact that you're male, etc. are proper and right.
They want to submit to the people who are correctly above them in the hierarchy, and want the people who are supposed to be below them in the hierarchy to submit to them.
It's really amazing to me that we're about to hit the 250th anniversary of the founding of the USA, and this is basically advocating going back to how votes worked worked way back when the country was founded.
Yeah. Wars weren't fought because a king had a temper tantrum. Wars were mostly fought to control land.
This is mistaking cause and effect. Fighting over land results in a lot of strong emotions. Emotions aren't the cause of fighting over land.
Capatilism is only possible when you steal value from someone or somewhere else.
I don't know about "Capatalism" but "Capitalism" doesn't require stealing value. All capitalism requires is private ownership of the means of production and using it to generate profit. If you're a painter and buy paint, an easel and some canvas, and use that to sell portraits, you're doing capitalism.
Most zoomers are anti-capitalist because they don't actually know what capitalism is, and can't really picture what it would actually be like in a different kind of economic system. Anybody who grew up after 1989 hasn't actually seen a world where any other economic system exists. Capitalism was an attempt to improve a world dominated by monopolies, with big tariffs and trade barriers, where workers had no freedom to change jobs and had to fight over the scraps left over from the wealthy. If that sounds like the current world, it's because we're backsliding from capitalism back towards mercantilism and feudalism. Not because capitalism sucks.
Windows:
That's all of them, isn't it? For all other tariffs he would have had to use the legislative branch, which he didn't.
Across the aisle repubs and dems are mostly pro-business, pro-trade
Well, plenty of the MAGA republicans are pro-tectionist more than they are pro-trade. If he'd tried to pass new tariffs on day 1 of his administration there's a chance that they might have had enough votes to do it. But, that was the slow way that required negotiating and compromise.
Now that people have seen just how awful the tariffs are, I think a lot of the MAGA republicans wouldn't pass the legislation. They could have claimed ignorance before the tariffs passed, but now it's hard for them to argue with a straight face that they'll be good for America.
It's not really a matter of timing. If this ruling had come out a year ago, it's not like there were enforcers ready to go. As soon as Trump took over he made sure that nothing in the executive branch was going to stand in his way. And his toadies in the legislative branch have been rolling over for him since the inauguration.
They're not really summarizing it. Summarizing means to express something in a more concise form. The original was a tweet, so if anything they un-summarized the bullet points in the tweet.
But, I know the "newspaper articles" you mean, and they are much worse. They seem to specialize in talking around the content of the tweets, and the reaction to the tweets, and the reactions to those reactions. But, if you want to actually know the actual content of the original tweet you have to keep scrolling and scrolling as you pass ad after ad (hopefully you're blocking the ads so you just get blank space after blank space). Those are so frustrating when all you want to know is what the actual tweet said.
countries trade for what they cannot make
That's the North Korea model. I don't think people in North Korea enjoy life much.
"Countries trade for what they're not specialized at" is the South Korean model. They import almost everything, and export high-end electronics, cargo ships, cars, etc.
I would rather live in South Korea, don't know about you.
Interesting game, but they seemed to intentionally make it as anti-fun as possible. Assembling the car was cool. But, everything you had to do to get the car parts, keep yourself alive, etc. was pretty tedious.
Typically it's more:
Countries should be relatively self-reliant, as should cities, as should individual homes. It's good to have a little garden if you can, and to be able to make bread from scratch if the supermarket is out of loaves.
But, too much self-reliance is a miserable way to live. Try living on a subsistence farm, and see how much work that is. And even then, you're not really self-reliant. You're probably buying refined diesel for your tractor, a tractor you bought from a tractor manufacturer, and so on. On the other hand if a farmer specializes in just one crop, say wheat, they're no longer self-sufficient, but they're probably more efficient, and they use the money they get from selling wheat to buy corn, tomatoes, and carrots from other specialists.
Not relying on other people has a major cost. It's much less efficient, and much more work. In the modern world, it's next to impossible. Even the Amish regularly buy and sell with the "English" world.
It's the same for countries. You can grow wine in England, and I'm sure some of it is good. But, it doesn't have the climate that France or Spain do. Instead of every country producing its own wine and only consuming domestic wine, why not get higher quality wine from the countries best at making it, and export to them the things you're best at producing.
Sometimes, relying on other countries can lead to problems. When it works it's cheaper and more efficient, but when it fails it can be bad. For example, Germany relied too much on cheap Russian gas. So, when Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany couldn't fully boycott Russia and had to keep paying them for gas until it could totally rework its energy infrastructure. Otherwise Germans would freeze in the winter.
But, Brexit was about leaving the EU. The EU isn't just a bunch of random trade partners. Russia is in Europe, but was never part of the EU. There's a reason why. Being part of the EU was supposed to also be a commitment to a common set of values: freedom, democracy, equality, human rights, etc. Not every country fully agreed with every other country's interpretation of values. But, that's ok, even within a country there were pretty major differences between people. Britain was part of the EU community, not merely a trade partner with EU countries.
Being part of the EU allowed the UK to have access to oranges at the lowest possible cost. They had to rely on Spain to grow those oranges, but Spain and England share many of the same interests and values, so that should have been fine. In exchange, they could sell things to Spain that Spain didn't produce locally, like whiskey.
With Brexit, England still can't grow oranges locally, and still has to import them from Spain. Spain still doesn't make much whiskey locally, and has to import it from England, but now there are barriers. Oranges are a true unique advantage that Spain has. Almost no other country in Spain can grow them as well. For the UK, their specialty wasn't as special. Sure, they have a lot of history with whisky, but pre-Brexit a lot of the specialization was finance, accounting, legal services, consulting, etc. That kind of expertise is easy to transfer to another country. It doesn't require a special climate, just trained people. So, when Brexit happened and trade barriers went up, it was easy for a company in France to switch to a financial services company out of Switzerland instead, and it was easy for financial services experts in London to just pick up and move (often move back) to the EU.
No country in the modern world is fully self-reliant, even North Korea trades with China. So, the real question is how self-reliant to be. Most people thought that the UK had it good. As one of the founding members of the EU it had managed to negotiate a few exceptions that were in its own interest. The British specialties of financial services, banking, insurance, accounting, consultancy, etc. were big revenue generators both from taxing the companies and from taxing the well paid white collar employees. The UK had a comparative advantage there not because of geography or climate, but just because of momentum. Companies were based out of London, and there was no reason to move, so that's where they stayed. But, as time goes on, it's likely that the slight friction between the UK and EU will mean that there will be a gradual migration out of London and over to Zurich, or Berlin or Paris.
Finally, since the UK and EU values and culture are so similar, even though the UK can make its own laws on all kinds of things now, they are still largely following the EU laws. The UK is free to change its food labelling laws to be more similar to the US, for example. But, UK people still want laws more similar to Europe than the US. One example of this is female sanitary products (tampons, etc.). One change the UK made after Brexit was to eliminate the VAT on those. But, this isn't because the UK cares more about women's needs than the EU, and this required an extreme decision like Brexit. A push towards a zero rate is happening in many EU countries, it's just going a bit slower.
In the end, the UK has maybe gained a little more self reliance by leaving a community of like-minded countries. But, the result is a big hit to its economy. It now has the ability to change its laws and regulations to reflect British values instead of European values. But, for the most part, nothing much has changed because for the most part British values and European values are pretty similar. It still has to import oranges from Spain, there's now just more paperwork. There are always tradeoffs. Often if the domestic manufacturing for something is small (say wine in the UK) it's because another country has a comparative advantage. You can shore up UK wine-making, but if you do that you're probably going to make wine more expensive for consumers, and probably make it lower quality as well. The EU is a community of like-minded countries that share interests and values, and has a lot of countries with pretty similar levels of economic development. Despite the rhetoric, Britons weren't losing their jobs because of foreign labour. Brexit didn't result in a big drop in the unemployment rate. It was already near historic lows. Basically, in the end, there was no need for Brexit, no advantage in Brexit, and a lot of costs once it was done.
Wow, this is an awful submission.
It's a very short article that is essentially restating a tweet but in paragraphs instead of bullet points. That tweet simply has a picture of something that looks like it might be an article published in a journal, or something?
If you actually want to see the source, you have to read the words on the picture in the tweet and search for them. That will eventually lead you to this working paper.
I'm not saying that the article didn't summarize the tweet properly, or that the tweet didn't summarize the working paper well. But, surely we can do better than articles which summarize tweets.
It this were a proper, well regulated capitalist marketplace with actual competition, the company that sold you the widget might offer you a rebate on your next order so that they could keep your business. But, when your only real option is Amazon, they know you're not going anywhere, so they'll keep the tariff repayment and just wait for your next order.
Bazzite:
SteamOS:
I'm sure that for Taiwan and South Korea, China is the biggest threat. For Poland, the biggest threat is Russia. It's obvious why the US is the biggest threat for Canada.
Even if the border weren't open and undefended, the two countries' economies have been getting more and more integrated for decades. Canada's economy depends on a stable and sane USA. For a long time that was a safe bet, but now the US is attacking Canada. And, even if it weren't for the tariffs and other attacks, the absolute chaos that Trump is doing to the American economy would reverberate into Canada's economy.
Russia threatens European power. U.S. threatens the Western Hemisphere and
It was nice of the CIA agent to hit "submit" after offing you.
How many are doing it on purpose? They got a big signing bonus that has to be paid back if they quit. They hate the job, and don't want to do it, but they already spent the signing bonus. If they're injured on the job they get time to recover, and might be assigned to a desk job once they're out of the hospital. Blam
Similarly:
We've been tracking you for decades now. We know your location at all times. We know about the humidifier you bought. We know you do everything in English, but we also know you're trying to learn Spanish. We know who your family members are based on your interactions with them, and we have vast databases on them too. We know about the plane ticket to Turkey. We know about the new bathing suit you bought. We know about the English language guidebook you bought for Turkey.
We know you're now in Turkey on your vacation.
Here's an ad in Turkish for a humidifier sold in a Turkish store.
You go to a different country, and despite the massive privacy invasions, and the terabytes of data they have about every aspect of your lives, they think you speak the local language and show you ads you can't even understand for products you'd never buy while there on a vacation.
Monopolies are the bread and butter of mercantilism. Capitalism was seen as a way to break up those monopolies.