World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
To be fair, everyone should subsidize their production. That makes products cheaper for everyone and life better for everyone.
The way i see it, the fact that this is considered unfair is the problem. We should be doing the same thing instead of bashing against that.
We could subsidize our production for example by giving people cheaper housing, so they can afford to earn less in their jobs which makes labor cheaper and therefore companies more competitive.
If you subsidize everything, you have to raise taxes on everyone. Makes it a zero sum thing.
You subsidize particular industries where you need growth. Most of the western world does not want more cars on the roads, they want more people to use public transit, hence no automotive subsidies in most European countries. And we DO have EV subsidies in a lot of countries! But we don't have them just for European manufacturers - rather, we treat all manufacturers equally for EV subsidies, because it's generally the buyer who gets the subsidy. EU car manufacturers still need to be profitable on the cars they sell, whereas the Chinese manufacturers can make money by selling cars for less than they cost to make (and we've in fact all paid for it already, since Chinese tax money comes largely from shit they've sold to the west).
USA is different, they want more cars on the road, but they also want all the cars to be American, so they do subsidies (or at least have done before) AND tariffs. That's just protectionism and sucks for consumers. If you're subsidizing your local industry, there's no reason to also tariff foreign industries, unless you want to limit consumer choice on purpose.
Ok so from what i could see in your comment, you're arguing very much from the point of view of macroeconomics. Your explanation feels like textbooks macroeconomics, at least to me.
The issue i have with your stance is that it's all too much focused on economics (who produces cars and sells them and such), but geopolitics is not just about economics. Not at all, in fact. Ultimately, if we want to have a future, we will have to live with our neighbors for a very long time. (The future is a very long time). To do this, we need to be on good terms with the other countries. What i'm not seeing in your comment is how this thought flows into your text. Where is the relationship between countries reflected in the market situation? Where is the trade relationship based on a mutual understanding of mutual interests? Where is the equality in the game?
I think that macroeconomics must be a side aspect of geopolitical contemplations, in other words, countries should strive to balance their trade relationship not for economic prosperity or necessity, but instead to respect international balances. That is not "protectionism", it's just making sure that the market isn't in eternal turmoil because of a series of disruptions from aggressive competitors.
Whether you subsidize the companies in your country or not is ultimately a choice that every country makes for themselves. It should also be noted that a lot of subsidies are very indirect, so it's difficult to say whether you're even subsidizing the auto industry or whether you're subsidizing your mining industry or your housing economy. Like, if you provide cheaper housing to your citizens, that lowers the cost of living, which means people can afford to earn less and still live well, which means companies can pay lower wages, which makes companies more competitive. Is this a subsidy to the auto industry or not? It's hard to say. Ultimately what countries must agree on is international relationships, while internal affairs are ultimately a choice that every country makes for themselves.
You're right that this is geopolitical too: China is on the offensive. They're trying to ensure the west (EU at least - USA is going to end itself anyway and Canada is too small to count on its own) is completely dependent on them. I’m of the opinion that countries should try to get along without one of them forcing the others into submission. But China is not being a diplomatic or trade partner in good faith.
As it is, I think it’s fair to tariff them where they’re trying to attack us specifically. There are also a lot of industries we’ve already lost because of the cost of labor here vs there - I don’t see any need to tariff those, I’m not Trump. I just want to see Europe protect the industries it’s still good at because otherwise we’ll be completely broke in a few decades if we have neither goods nor services to sell. Or we may all have to live like the Chinese do - get rid of some workers rights, reduce wages, etc - to stay competitive. Maybe start doing the 996 work schedule?