Donald Trump and his 4-year “bring manufacturing back” goal. And other stuff.

Responses to Facebook chats.

PRESIDENT Trump's 4-year goal: Bring manufacturing back. The last year the United States had a trade surplus was in 1975. Yet the year that many U.S. companies started to really move, build or partner (in) factories in China (and elsewhere) was in 2001 when China was accepted into the WTO as an MFN. That was a year after Bill Clinton signed a trade pact with Jiang Zemin. A few years later, China gained leverage per tariffs. Thus, globalization took off as a neo-liberal pitch.

       Note: China owns the largest labor force ($4/a week pay, something) and massive deposits of pertinent raw materials as they scattered loans and investments (FDIs) in many countries. Actually, they started buying lands overseas in the 1970s in Deng Xiaoping's years. Fast forward, 2009: the BRICS "emerging economies" trade bloc was born.  And in 2012, Russia entered the WTO. 

       These wobbled G7's global economic domination. And as the U.S. focused on wars (Afghanistan then Ukraine and Gaza) and a widening divide internally, BRICS expanded to gain more members in the Middle East (+ Ethiopia and Indonesia) and China's BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) solidify China's global trade expansionism (more money tossed in MENA). 

       Right now, there are 8,619 American companies in China. Luring them back can be hard as China matches Mr Trump's tariffs. More importantly, China's cheap but coherent labor and ample natural minerals like silicon and lithium and APIs to drugs. Or those U.S. companies may just move across the border to India and Indonesia. 🇺🇸☮️🇨🇳

HENCE, Donald Trump looks for instead. America is still #1 consumer market and top marketing showroom with superstar endorsers. And the US dollar is still the global legal tender. Recently, South Korea's Hyundai, Taiwan's TSMC and Japan's SoftBank expressed willingness to invest in the U.S. (Japan is top investor in the US; Canada owns 33 percent of foreign-owned lands here). 

       Question: Labor. Joe Biden's $6 billion to TSMC in Texas didn't work because workers are unskilled to make semiconductors. (Note: Joe let in migrants in record numbers. Figure out why.) But now TSMC offers to train with its own money. Concessions? Yet still silicon etc come from China, Russia, India and other BRICS partners. 

       China also gathered 14 economies in Asia Pacific in 2020 to form the RCEP, the largest trade bloc so far. Etc etcetera. The D may run out of time so I see an end game before 2028. His second trade pact with Xi Jinping.    

       Anyhow, hawks in Washington believe that the only way to break China is to provoke it into a war in the South China Sea. But Mr Trump doesn't dig that playbook. I don't either. China doesn't like wars. Bad for their massive global business and BRI construction. Trump (and RFK Jr and JD and Musk) also see military brinkmanship as a waste of taxpayer money. 🏛🗽🏛

FOR the meantime, Mr Trump dares Iran to go to war. It's a bluff, I believe. POTUS is applying the pressure on Tehran because Iran's hardliners back the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis are still making a mess in the Red Sea. Mr Trump wants the leader of the Houthis taken out. Remember, he erased ISIS’ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and General Qasem Soleimani in his first 4 years. 

       Note: Iran's top oil buyer is China, the world's #1 oil importer. Infuriating the CCP by derailing Tehran's oil shipment to China is not a cool tactical move to bring the Chinese to the negotiating table as what Mr Trump did in early 2020. He knows he's not done talking because he lost the election in that year.

       Complex, isn't it? Ah. All the rest are simply doomsday pitch by the media, which are essentially owned by corporations. Panic buy, you know. Profit grade. 🏛🗽🏛

Greatest Threat To Global Peace?

Responses to Facebook chats.

IN a WIN/Gallup poll in 2014, a survey conducted in 65 countries involving 66,000 responders, under a quarter named the U.S. as the greatest threat to global peace. A distant second was Pakistan at 8 percent; China, 6 percent. Tied at 4 percent were Iran and Israel. Years before that, in 2006 study by Pew, the U.S. was #1 greatest threat. 

       Yup, I don't think that ever changed. But today's poll that says Donald Trump is the greatest threat, I believe, is more Western (liberal) media manipulation. Why is that? It's because Mr Trump, it seems, has a different foreign policy playbook than other Potuses. He prefers to employ a relatively dovish agenda and dislikes the U.S. as top donor to NATO funding. He is "friendlier" to Russia, the West's traditional global narcissism rival. 

       Friendship with perceived U.S./European enemies is how the media define threat to peace, which baffles me. Threat to global "domination" via trade is not really about the military as the narrative says. Reason why Joe Biden vehemently, enthusiastically goaded China to a war in South China Sea (by way of Taiwan) which of course didn't work. Sorry, the CCP isn't MMA crazy. 

       China's trade expansionism via its ambitious BRI project threatens the West's global economic rule for centuries until the 21st century. But The D is fighting China via trade (tariffs) which I expect would lead to his second trade pact with Xi Jinping. Of course, China is not dumb (as Russia isn't dumb although Kremlin's hardcores can never be cowed as do the U.S. hawks). So China will respond but who knows how but all in trade. 

      Meanwhile, check the expansion of the BRICS trade bloc and RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) in Asia Pacific etcetera. Meanwhile, before the revered historian Howard Zinn died in 2010, he predicted a huge divide in the U.S. that could rival the Civil War years. Repeat: 2010, we didn't even know Donald would run for the GOP primary at that time. He was all Apprentice shit. But yes Donald Trump is this side of America's greatest alibi for anything bad about America. Convenient. A loud excuse for America's guilt? ☮️☮️☮️

War and Stuff and POTUS Policies.

Responses to Facebook chats.

<>BILL CLINTON. President Clinton and NATO and the Kosovo War. That is a huge discussion. After 1991 and the end of the Warsaw Pact (and Cold War sort of), NATO would have at least stayed cool. Nope. So the Slovenian War and Bosnian War (and Kosovo War) were "rationales" for NATO expansion. Pissed Russia off, of course. On the trade angle, Bill's trade pact with Jiang Zemin in 2000 is another huge discussion. The following year, China joined the WTO as a privileged member or Most Favored Nation (MFN). Next is history, such as China's unflagging trade expansionism. 🏛🗽☮️

<>BARACK OBAMA. President Obama and prolonged or heightened the Afghanistan War. He could have stopped this war from surpassing the Vietnam crisis as America's longest war but he didn't. In his first term, he increased U.S. military presence there but he withdrew 8,400 (from 98,000) in his second term. 

       To his credit, Mr Obama presided over a mission to take out Osama bin Laden in 2011. Yet he also helped install the U.S.-educated Ashraf Ghani as president, which only infuriated the Taliban. Development projects in the countryside didn't really work because the people out there rejected them or didn't really mostly participate.

       Lots to talk about the Afghanistan story. Budget or expenditures etcetera. You may google numbers.

       Meanwhile, before Barack left office in 2016, he enhanced arms aid to Israel via a 10-year $38 billion military aid package in September of that year (which would expire next year). 🏛🗽☮️

<>JOE BIDEN. Two weeks following November 2020, as President Biden exalted his election win, China gathered 14 Asia Pacific economies to form the largest trade pact in history, the RCEP. China meanwhile solidified its trade partnership with Taiwan (think Foxconn and TSMC's silicon supply). 

       So all the war-mongering that Mr Biden did per South China Sea via Taiwan didn't work. President Trump is doing it via tariffs but the Chinese are not dumb; the CCP's trade leverage has exponentially strengthened since 2001. 

       Meanwhile, the U.S. still gotta sell arms in Asia because the Arab League, especially Saudi Arabia, ain't cool with "arms for oil" anymore. Well, unless wars continue, policies may change? Hawks will not allow peace in the desert, obviously. 

       Iran is a key but per recent news, the Supreme Leader is pissed with Mr Trump's “dares.” Still, Tehran's new moderate leadership doesn't want more war or China will stop buying Iran's oil (if the Strait of Hormuz becomes a bottleneck). Etc etcetera. ☮️☮️☮️

FB Friend: I’m tired of this horror movie we’re trapped in the middle of.

Me: Imagine, those who are ACTUALLY in these/those horror for real--while we (only) watch the movie.

Who Rules America? / More Migrant Talk.

Responses to Facebook chats.

Who Rules America?

Who rules: The 1 Percent. The current eerie divide is basically caused by both sides' corporate powers. Divide and rule. Only, they gotta decide between themselves who'd gain more profit traction by way of partisanship politics. Their zealots are pretty much what they are. Partisan zealots.

       The (New) Left favors a hawkish playbook, and uses its military brawn the traditional way: Proxy wars, "arms for oil," and the likes. The other, a dovish playbook, which puts more premium on trade wars (tariff gambits) or economic negotiations. The common denomination is–military brinkmanship stays. Up front or in the background.

       Whatever the case, Washington's military spending stays exponentially spiking. America is culturally obsessed with weaponry as proof of power, whether they use them or not. (So far, hawks are winning over Trump's doves. Or we don't really know the actual composition of Mr Trump's crew, dovish or hawkish.) 💻✍️📲

More Migrant Talk.

<>Due to record number of border crossings (from 2021 to 2024), the U.S. asylum fiscal management is now bankrupt. Cities that house them are facing budget problems and their constituents, jittery. But those who were removed or deported were mostly facing criminal cases hence they were directly sent to prisons in their country of origin. 

       The U.S. helps these countries with the surge of new inmates. I guess, they pretty much dealt with basic accounting per U.S. taxpayer money. Feed them in U.S.prisons or feed them in El Salvador etc prisons. Which is more expensive? I give them the benefit of the doubt. (Hint: President Trump is massively cost-cutting.)

<>The thinking that the U.S. is helping undocumented migrants (or helping Americans) by having them pick veggies and fruits for us is a bit flawed. Farms and factories actually exploit or abuse these migrant workers by paying them $2/hr (no benefits and insurance etc) and house them in trailers like 12 in a 4 room trailer. Some are minors, too. Food is rationed. 

       Meanwhile, those who are left wandering about, figure that one out. When calamities happen, they are not counted of course. Anyhow there are still many who are in DOJ housing, foster homes, churches and NGO-provided facilities with paralegal aid, awaiting asylum but these numbers have overflowed years ago. Bottomline, the U.S. needs to process their papers before accepting more applications. No brainer. 💻✍️📲

Signal Chat and War Plans. And Stuff.

WASHINGTON's top security staff's surreal “group chat” goof, or whatever that “accidental” shenanigan is called, is of course a national American frolic. A sure feed to the partisanship caterwaul or hate Trump showtime. Certainly, an SNL material.

 

       Beyond this though, whether Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic journalist in the center of the Signal chat drama, was mistakenly included in the chat room or not, it proves that the internet is not a safe place, especially for this kind of internal top-level government "chat." Anyhow, hackers can easily breach an online site if they want to, regardless if the trespass is a juvenile nerd mischief or a really massive terror intent. 

       Whatever the case, the Houthis in Yemen now know what's up in the U.S. camp. Of course they're not dumb. They got their own "chats," too, to discuss this. But then, was the booboo actually a trap? Journalists are not supposed to be in the “room” so who let Mr Goldberg in? And why? Did Jeffrey infiltrate the security soiree? Is that legal? I don't know.

       Anyways, whatever Defense chief Pete Hegseth, security advisor Mike Waltz etc chatted per “bombing Yemen” is rendered senseless when smokes of social media chatter subside. It was a chat or a plan that wasn't carried out. (As though a “war plan” isn't a fact of superpower leadership playbook and such acts weren't carried out in actuality in the past…) 

WASHINGTON regroups. In Mr Trump's first term, his military took out ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iran/Quds chief Qasem Soleimani leading to the Doha Accords that eventually ended the 20-year Afghanistan war (never mind the stupid drama thriller in July 20, 2021 or during Joe Biden's time). 

       Meanwhile, as we know it, the Israel/Hamas ceasefire is shaky and fighting resumes. The Hezbollah is a bit quiet but the Houthis are not easy to obliterate. They have resumed shudders in the Red Sea. Etcetera. So I am not amused by the Signal brouhaha. I am not partisan but I favor the end of wars or relatively dovish U.S. plans to help ease hostilities in the region over escalating them.    

       For the meantime, I expect President Trump to yell "You are fired!" However, I can't help but ask, why would this fiasco be a laughing matter to many or a fodder for jest? Because when war escalates, we stay comfy as ever in America? Of course… So let the shaming continue? 🏛🗽🏛

[Visual: USA Today.]

Old Journalism. Blogging. Social Media.

Response to a Friend's Facebook post.

SOMEONE here on my Facebook Page (older or my age) disagreed with my thoughts on current politics by insulting my “journalist-self” or, according to him, my inability to consider facts hence my opinion or insight about what's going on. He was reacting to my "My Thought..." per the day’s news, quoted the first line from a mostly liberal media source. His words, as the usual case, were rude and smothered with juvenile snides and punctuated by that annoying laughing emoji. 

       I wrote back saying this is my social media self, my opinion, my "blog," my random take on a current news report. Not me years ago after I covered an event or interviewed someone. When I wrote as a journalist or reporter, I was "detached" from my subject and myself. I write about what I saw and heard more than how I felt about the event that I covered. (My youth's editor Joe Burgos' to me: "Write news, not poetry.") 

       Then, I often wrote about how I feel about the news that I filed via poetry, songs or I painted. My feelings or emotions about what I saw or experienced went through my literary work. The artist in me beyond or apart from the journalist me. Then came social media and blogging. I extensively post as I blog extensively. That persona is like the guy who responds in a poetry workshop in GAT or political “talakayan” at Grand Inihaw over beers after a day's work at the beat albeit not rude or insulting. 

       When I blog, I don't just "decide for myself." Blogging or journaling isn't like jotting outbursts in a diary, which is private or all for yourself. Although I am currently writing a sort of memoir (I meant to leave to my kids and family when the day is "done.") That is like a diary, not a blog or Facebook post. Etc etcetera. Anyhow, we didn't expect the internet to "replace" traditional journalism. So comparison is a bit difficult. Just two different animals, I guess. 📰✍️💻

Ukraine. And Trump Stuff.

Response to a Friend’s Facebook post.

THE New Left howls, “I stand with Ukraine.” Me, I stand with Ukraine and I stand with Russia. I stand higher for No War so no more military aid to whatever country, amidst war or peacetime. And I stand with the (current) U.S. position in brokering peace in whatever way but not via more fighting or arms aid. End the war now and then we can talk more about trade and economics next. 

       Ukraine's minerals are not a one-shipment deal so whatever deal President Trump offered, sign it. Let FDIs enter Ukraine for recovery and rebuilding. Not just from the U.S. and the European Union, but also from China and BRICS nations. 

       Most importantly, hold a national election in Ukraine, alongside a probe of how the foreign aid to Kyiv, since February 2022, was spent. Before 2022, more than 3 million Ukrainians worked in Russia. Both peoples are kin or couples and friends. My neighbors are Ukrainian/Russian wife and husband. Yet in America, we chose to take a stand to divide them over taking a stand to end this war. 

       We are not really affected by this war the way the Ukrainians and Russians are so we treat this as a dramatic Left vs Right caterwaul while comfortably seated in front of our gadgets, sipping wine or drowned in beer. Mostly, the New Left’s stand is due to their hatred for Mr Trump who chose to shake hands with Russia rather than goad Vladimir Putin to continue the war. Yet Donald uses that friendship, perceived or real, to end this war. 

       Volodymyr Zelensky's fate as President depends on this war. He suspended the election because the war is still happening, hence he expects to get more aid? Logical. Probably if Kamala Harris won last November, he will get more? But America has already given a lot of taxpayer money to Kyiv. Money that the U.S. can, for example, allocate for FEMA or health services. 

       Mr Zelensky has no leverage to negotiate apart from his country's "rare earth" etcetera. Whoever is POTUS, the quid pro quo for USAID or military aid is natural resources or priority country in trade deals. That's always been the case, historically. Aid is not dole-out or gift. (I am a Filipino who protested USAID when I was in the Philippines.)  

       At least, President Trump's deal is not the "arms for oil" that was the deal in the Middle East for many years. That region is already rich and now high on economic development so they now reject "arms for oil." Volodymyr still insists on arms for rare earth etcetera. He is dreaming. But I am scared for him. Hint: His military might make a move. You know, that is also historical and we know whose hand would push it. 🇺🇸☮️🇺🇦