Please elaborate the damage done by phrases of civility around pronous, that would justify vehement opposition. Dont worry, you can speak ill about communism to me.
> it’s time to have a discussion about AI tho. This isn’t just about you or Lobsters - it’s about how we’re going to navigate a world where the tools of creation are rapidly changing.
> One area of discussion will be calls for the US to guarantee a minimum price for critical minerals and rare earths
Why is a minimum price more important that a maximum one with guaranteed supply quotas?
And who trusts the US for that?
> “This is about trust. You sign a deal and you trust it will apply,” said an EU source. “This constant threat of more tariffs, whether 10% because of Greenland or 200% on champagne because they don’t sign up to the ‘board of peace’ has to stop.”
Yea. I guess its just theater to calm trump and to guarantee profit margins.
> Why is a minimum price more important that a maximum one with guaranteed supply quotas?
Previous attempts to set up a supply chain for these minerals in the West have repeatedly failed because the economics didn't work out. If China can sell a batch of samarium at a lower cost than what a Western firm would spend to extract it, you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.
> And who trusts the US for that?
The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.
> you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.
This is the question - what form of subsidy to use? You seem to imply they're all the same but that isn't true. For example, farming is subsidized in the US without mandating minimum prices - there seem to be good reasons for that but why are minerals so much different as to warrant a different approach which is significantly more disruptive to competition and thus to market forces?
> The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.
That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to. The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination - that is, when one side conforms to agreements and the other doesn't, that other side is effectively dictating its conditions to the rest. This should be quite obvious but what do I know.
Farming in the US is indeed subsidized with minimum prices. Because the government isn't itself in the value chain of most farm goods, there's a two-level payment structure; rather than telling the buyer they must pay at least $X, the government steps in to pay the difference between the market price and the minimum (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/arc-plc). But the products made from critical minerals are almost all destined for government purchase, so there's no point in complicating things.
> That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to.
I don't think that's true, unless the quote was meant as a snippy aside that's irrelevant to the source article. If the US wants to talk about critical minerals, you can (probably should!) be skeptical of any promises or commitments the current administration makes, but refusing to talk isn't a realistic option.
They're talking to China too, to be clear. The EU hosted talks in October. However, the Chinese position on the matter is pretty clear: they're happy to export these minerals for civilian applications, but they don't want to supply foreign militaries, and they're going to enact whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that stops happening.
> They're talking to China too, to be clear. The EU hosted talks in October. However, the Chinese position on the matter is pretty clear: they're happy to export these minerals for civilian applications, but they don't want to supply foreign militaries, and they're going to enact whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that stops happening.
This is also why the EU signed a Defense Pact with India [0] and Vietnam [1] last week - critical mineral sourcing from India and Vietnam leveraging Japanese [2] and Korean [3] technology partnerships in both countries drove both deals. Additonally, both Indian and Vietnamese component and defense vendors are now elligible to participate in Rearm Europe/Readiness 2030 along with their Japanese and Korean partners like Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Hyundai, and Samsung.
Most countries are adopting a Production Linked Incentive model for REEs which Vietnam [1] and India [0] are using to build our capacity, as both face active military disputes against China, and have been supported by Japanese [2] and Korean [3] processing tech transfers and JVs.
Western countries like Australia and the US are adopting similar strategies, which is the point of the summit mentioned.
> The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination
The issue is China has already [4] done [5] this [6] for over a decade [7].
As such, most countries (especially Asian countries where the majority of the electronic supply chain exist) are fine working with the US because China is an existential threat that wishes to invade them.
The EU used to be on the fence but Chinese leadership's constant undermining [8] of the EU [9] as an institution [10] led the EU to get on board as well.
Obama also never 'joked' about a third term or diverted funds into private accounts or accepted a gifted 747 plane. How can one think that trumps corruption is just about the same level as others...
Are you really trying to argue that
A) Trump never advocated for a third term
B) (simultaneously) Trump advocating for a third term is no different than any other politician's posturing.
Awareness and ignoring are two different things. And I'm as far from a right winger as I can imagine. You on the other hand have shown your cards. No politician's word is worth a damn. Learn that and you'll be much happier.
We have so many problems. So many savaged construction sites that we knew for decades were important. The problem is not, where all this fiat money could go, there are plenty of places. The problem is, where it can go and make a profit. That was a hint to broaden your perspective.
As a leftist, i can tell you that any kind of unchecked capitalism or inequality threatens democracies and their constitutions in the long run.
The contradiction of private vs public interests surfaces when growth/ROI demands become harder to achieve. Marx predicted it as diminishing profit rates [0]. The decades of lowering taxes for rich individuals and corporations led to the present budget pressure on institutions, civic decay and agitated uninformed voters. This happens in all capitalistic democracies and we hear the same songs everywhere, about more austerity with a xenophobic background.
> As a leftist, i can tell you that any kind of unchecked capitalism or inequality threatens democracies and their constitutions in the long run.
And as a libertarian I can emphatically agree. A foundation of libertarianism is freedom of individual choice, and when a significant number of are economically disenfranchised such that they face economic coercion while simply trying to exist, it completely undermines that foundation. And looking at the structure from the top, completely ineffective anti-trust enforcement has made it so there aren't even many choices to choose from.
> The decades of lowering taxes for rich individuals and corporations lead to the [pressing] budget pressure on institutions, civic decay and agitated uninformed voters
I agree with your description of this trend, as well. I learned long ago that it's not enough to merely push in one direction and assume any results will be positive by construction. Rather you must look at what actually stands to be achieved, in order to avoid merely being a patsy for entrenched interests.
I do question why diminishing profit rates are relevant though. Even if profits had generally been going up, wouldn't the desire for even more wealth lead to the same lobbying / looting pattern?
I haven't really studied Marx though. A quick reading of your link, and trying to restate what I took away in my own terms: As labor becomes less important to capital, then capital is less inclined to invest in the labor pool? That does basically fit the overall trends.
> I do question why diminishing profit rates are relevant though. Even if profits had generally been going up, wouldn't the desire for even more wealth lead to the same lobbying / looting pattern?
Yes, it would, because the expectations of growth/profit/ROI are baked into the system (eg. by interests rates ticking on everything) but in this case, not necessarily to the detriment of society. The profit drive is the root of the problem. Achieving these profits is the point of conflict.
In early capitalistic societies, economic growth is easier because of untapped resources but once the growth of the economic pie slows down, environmental exploitation becomes societal explotation. Previously the point of conflict was capitalists, externalizing cost onto nature (waste products, side effects), today, it is them externalizing operational cost onto the public. Marxs take is, as i understand it, that this profit margin is physically bound to shrink when the remaining space for cost externalization shrinks too, because free markets eventually propagate the lower product prices.
Iam sceptical whether china is more evil than the current and historic US. Both countries have commited atrocities but the US was way more involved "for their interests overseas". Maybe the western distrust towards china will make it a different power equilibrium.
reply