Why should the US try to lead solar panel technology ? China has many talented engineers and plenty of venture capital. I'd prefer them to invest it in solar panel manufacturing and power electronics rather than social media, ai or Telco technology.
Relying on a non-friendly country for something so crucial as energy is generally not a great position to be in, particularly if that country has rival world power ambitions. Europe and Russia have provided a great recent example of why you don't want to be reliant on potential enemies for your energy needs, and while the situation between the US and China is not the same and solar is different than fossil fuels, it's still a factor worth thinking about. The US would be a lot more secure being able to rely on a domestic solar industry as solar becomes more and more important.
I think your vision is too US centric, US hegemony lead to disruptions to foreign nations like afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc. My pov from latinamerica is that my country could be next, and neither your culture nor your "business class" seems the future(we reflect your cultural hegemony with our version of shitty role models), si why not challenge US hegemony?
If you think your own country is in bad enough shape that it could be next on a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as they were just prior to US involvement you need to have a good long think about fixing your own problems fast.
Each of those countries might have been "stable" by some definition of the word, but they all had pretty crappy organizations monopolizing power. US interference certainly didn't fix their underlying problems but it did dislodge the badguys on top. (unfortunately, often just leaving the spot open for some other badguys because aforementioned underlying problems)
Realistically, the next country on the US hitlist is probably Iran, not your latam home country. But first the American public needs to get back it's war appetite, and the shooting in Ukraine needs to simmer down (probably within a year, along new borders that are pretty close to what the current battle lines are), and China needs to not distract us by starting with Taiwan.
The tariffs and policy in questions are being set by the US - of course the discussion is US-centric, the question being discussed is ‘how should the US be approaching this?’
The second biggest geopolitical opponent to the US, Russia, is in major decline. Their primary opponent, China, is slowing down and has enormous domestic problems to deal with that are projected to worsen for a long period of time. The US was supposed to be behind in AI research, but technologically, they're ahead. I believe that once AI is used to exert geopolitical pressure, economically or through counter action, it will be a runaway advantage. If this were Star Wars I think we'd be at the point where we were only starting to see the rise of the Empire.
Every government has to think about energy independence, of which oil production is part of that story. Our oil economics are also intertwined with US policy, which renewables are helping undo in the US. That's to say, US society is trying to put a cap on how energy independence involves in conflict either directly or indirectly.
> Abstract: In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, oil-producing countries have civil wars at a significantly higher rate than countries without oil. Is there also a link between oil and armed rebellion in Latin America?
> I argue the answer is “yes,” but with an important qualification. In the rest of the
world, oil heightens the danger of both “governmental” conflicts (over control of the
existing state) and secessionist conflicts (to form new states); but in Latin America, oil is
only linked to governmental conflicts. This is not because Latin American petroleum has
unusual properties, but because the region is uniquely “secession-proof”: there have
been no separatist conflicts in Latin America for over a century. I explore two possible
explanations for this anomaly: the region’s long history of sovereign statehood, which
may have caused national borders to become more widely-accepted; and obstacles to the
mobilization of indigenous groups along ethnic lines.
Tldr; instead of getting involved in foreign wars to save your oil supply, it's cheaper to centralize the oppression back home.
Hegemony is inevitable, prosperous, and peaceful. Anyone who would challenge US hegemony would either intend to establish themselves their own hegemony or would be patsies creating a situation where another force could do so. Do would we be better off under a global islamic caliphate deriving from afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc… or a Chinese hegemoney, or a German hegemony? I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of equity, prosperity, and peace.
I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of guns, mass shootings, and being okay with children being killed in their classrooms.
For the Americans. In the meanwhile, the rest of the world is so sick of your hegemony, it would rather see anyone else, or better yet, state of a never ending direct fight between the contenders while the rest of the world is left alone.
I'm always baffled by this sort of defensive and childish response that happens whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority. It hints at a deep-rooted inferiority complex in the American identity.
Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely.
Anxiously lashing out at people because they express a desire for improvements in their society, and improvements in American society isn't productive.
whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority.
You think the grandparent comment is what you describe here?
Ironically, GGP's comment was a well thought out comment supporting American 'hegemony'.
I think you have your "lash out" backwards in this case.
"Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely."
Yeah! Criticize America so it can be better but taking a stance that world would magically be better off without America, or even that the world doesn't want America while obsessively consuming American products seems rather childish in my opinion.
No offense to you but I think you're really miss reading here and/or looking to interpret something that was meant to illustrate a point rather than be outright deliberately condescending which appears to be how you wish to interpret it.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya were all failed states when the US intervened / invaded (which is also not a good argument for invading those nations; the US betrayed its own self-interest in the second Iraq war).
If your nation is run by a dictatorship, it's a failed state.
If your nation is a theocracy, it's a failed state.
You'll notice the distinct lack of the US invading well-functioning, democratic nations (we share a remarkably unguarded, massive border with Canada).
You generally can't challenge US hegemony, it's far too large, and still expanding. China is the only entity since the 1950s Soviet Union that could even attempt it. For example while the EU's strongest economies have been largely going sideways for ~15 years economically (since the great recession), the US has added nearly $10 trillion to its economy (a further ~65-70% expansion in 15 years). Who is going to keep up with that, at that size (other than China)?
German speaking here. This position brought a lot of harm and made the German economy very fragile. The German business model in the last decades was based on cheap security (NATO), cheap gas (Russia) and a huge market to sell cars (China).
And here we are in 2023, paying 100s of billions of tax money for (maybe) having a working army in a couple of years, a near collapsing economy bc of zeroed gas imports and a tightening market in China.
Still relying on boundless global trade in 2023 is just.. a funny position.
Not to get off topic but that's why BMW has changed their grill and car design so much even though Western journalists hate it. They are targeting the Asian market.
I am not contending Chinese are any shape or form incapable, given the factory floor of the world for a generation they do have best of the best.
The issue is State subsidies and Environmental and Labor regulation that is flimsy.
Any American company operating on US soil will be uncompetitive from Day 1 trying to follow, Federal, State and EPA regulation.
As much as Solar Panels are touted in Environmental community, they are a product of intense chemical process that produces poisonous waste.
And significantly less burdensome manufacturing pollution rules. The West exported manufacturing pollution to developing countries and named it 'free trade'.
EDIT: thanks for all the answers, IIUC it boils down to "nobody cares if a luxury item from a western company is built on slavery, the only thing that matters is that poor people who built it cannot afford it"
Because Apple sets the price according to what people are willing to pay. The price isn't directly related to the manufacturing cost or the development cost.
Is that true? In India I thought I read how people have fake iPhones because of what a luxury symbol it is. That purchasing one for the vast majority of people is out of the question.
There must be some limit to how low it can be sold for.
Because you’re not just paying for a physical device. You’re also paying for the software that runs on it which is best in class. And before people start saying it’s not, how many people are running 7 year old androids compared to iPhones? In USD, A brand new iPhone, kept for 7 years works out at 32 cents a day - phenomenally cheap for something integral to modern day life. And that’s not even taking into account you can most likely sell it for $50/$100 at the end of that seven years, making it even cheaper.
I changed the battery last year, it costed me 13$ (~12 euros), it is as good as new.
Now it might be that my Android phone is Chinese as well, so it actually costed me less than 10¢ a day. Even if I had to replace my Android smartphone, I could have changed it 3 times in the past 7 years and still spend less than buying an iPhone that lasted me 7 years.
I could still easily sell it for 30-40 euros, making it even cheaper.
So you've edited your comment to bring up slave labour for some reason, so obviously your Android phone and your $13 battery are all ethically sourced right?
I have experienced a culture shock after moving to the US and looking at prices for some items. The best summary I have is "in USA, the thing is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it", unlike the previous mindset I had, roughly "take the cost of producing something and add X% markup" where X is not too high.
What you’ve described is specific to humanity, not the US — “the thing is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it” is a near universal truth.
Poland. I think folks there are more price-sensitive and it helps keep the prices at a more reasonable level. Coming from Poland, my price-setting approach would not take into account how much something is worth to the customer, just how much it cost me to produce + low double-digit percent markup.
Because people are willing to pay the price point. In places I've been, rule of thumb for pricing is usually 3x BoM. I've heard (sorry no reference, just word of mouth) Apple targets at least 5x.
Side-note: if anyone believes the idea that companies pass savings to the consumer... Well I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn they might be interested in
That's not necessarily true. Shipping (via ocean) of finished expensive small products is cheap and quite low carbon on a per device basis as long as you don't mind the delay. One of the reasons china is the place to manufacture is that the electronics manufacturing _inputs_ are now concentrated there, as is the know-how.
Well I'm calling bullshit on neoliberal free-trade ideology based on voodoo economics which just looks at simple measurable factors like "cost of labor" completely ignoring social cost (local unemployment, mass migration, social tensions, etc.) and ecological cost (pollution, climate crisis, etc.) which were commonly socialized (tax money) in case of a concrete crisis. Not a personal attack, sorry if it sounded like that.
