What the article didn't mention was that the US has pirated (ahem) "commandeered" Iranian oil tankers as well. This is an ongoing dispute between these two countries. Iran violates US sanctions, but technically they are merely US sanctions which have the legal weight of say Togo's sanctions on the high seas. (Togo doesn't enforce their domestic law on the high seas, nor can they.)
The simplest way to get Iran to stop compandeering tankers is for the US to do the same. They don't want our "peace", it is true. "Peace with Piracy" is just not compelling to the Iranians. Can you blame them?
Likewise, China benefits from trade near her borders but the US and allies want the ability to turn off the spigot when they wish to force China into concessions, as has been noted in US geopolitical articles for decades now.
Note the Australian nuclear submarines deal: They don't really want to protect their trade with China...from China, they want the ability to control trade between China and her allies. These subs would do part of the job, with the bulk of it done by the USN. Enjoy a comedy skit on that subject: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k
> China benefits from trade near her borders but the US and allies want the ability to turn off the spigot when they wish to force China into concessions
The word for this is "blockade", generally recognized as an act of war. When exactly did the US threaten to blockade China? And why is it that those nearby trading partners seem to regard China, not the US as a threat? How could they all have it so wrong?
There is concern amongst countries in the area. There are many territorial disagreements. Both that and pressure to host bases etc in exchange for secure access to US markets.
The Biden administration is pursuing a policy of ambiguity with respect to China. A blockade is an act of war, but publically threatening it is also a quick way to lose sway in the court of world opinion. I agree that there is no public threat of a blockade by the adminstration, nor did I claim they did. Similarly, when was the last time the US officially declared war? WWII? Actions are better indicators than words. One cannot "contain" a country like China without assets in place. And they are there. I've read about 400 installations in Asia alone?
China militarily invaded another country in, if I recall, Vietnam in 1971. Most here were not born then. I'm a geezer and I was two. A lot of wars have occurred since then, but we characterize them as an aggressor nation.
Their threat to us is not that they will invade their neighbour. It is that their economic force of gravity will pull the entire world into their economic orbit, leaving us as an "also ran".
I think that people must move past the belief in "heroism" as a job function and understand that many companies (not all) are parasitic creatures which finagle to charge economic rents, not saviours of Western democracy that provide value added as is commonly assumed.
I got the opportunity to apply for my current job yesterday. I expect an offer letter and threats to sign within two days or lose the job I have next week. My future company is a lowest bidder and was selected from around thirty applicants.
Not an economist but B.A. Econ here. (Comp sci degree/career came later.)
The difference is the product. In the products these companies sell, especially for us, with web based software, the marginal cost of selling to one more customer is very low. An EE could design an excellent device, but the marginal cost of selling that device is still high. As are the services offered by Lawyers etc. It is the efficient scaling of products that make them so valuable. Those companies that have scaled (or have the potential to scale) their product typically have a lot of money to throw at building it. Those individuals which have the capacity to build scale-able products are in high demand and hence have high pay. My two cents anyway.
I would refine "globalism and capitalism" to just "corporatism". It really is socialism for companies and capitalism for you and I.
Patent laws suit big Pharma. Trade law and health guidelines suit big Agriculture. (Ketoer here so you know where I'm coming from.) Tough luck for the millions of people caught in the middle between these influential sets of oligarchs.
It is abhorrent that regular people subsidize (and pay a high price in life and limb) for government's covert largess to these corporations.
Whenever relations with nuclear powers are concerned, trust between these governments is an important issue for everyone. I don't think anyone has claimed that there was a conspiracy at the time. But for the West to renege on past agreements undermines existing ones and makes future agreements more difficult with any party. The world is much more dangerous as a result.
2 1/2 minutes to midnight.
That's the also the foundation of the political system. Whomever is behind these ads (may well be the Russian government, or may not) should get in line far behind everyone else.
How about a system where accusations are entered and kept encrypted until enough actual people enter similar ones and the info is released (maybe to a Wikileaks type organization for verification) automatically? The subject could be notified if they get n complaints. The accusations would have to be enough that there would be an excellent chance of conviction. I think it is an issue for all people in power, not simply media types. Because of the power of the subjects there would have to be some way to avoid the courts shutting it down too though. Perhaps an Ether smart contract? It would never catch all the bad people in the world but could at least put some checks on or even stop the powerful serial offender.
I know this is a bit "Pollyanna-Technical" "solution" to a human problem but it is the best I can think of given the adversarial court system, inequities of money, and all that.
Also, I don't think one should limit it to particular crimes.
On my phone: apologies for such a disorganized post.
A difficult thing to describe. Joy Division was a product of a man tortured by his internal demons. To me, their music was never really about the usual topics. It was about the a desire for a just (yet unattainable) world given the barbarism of everyday life.
If you're fifty, it may be trite idealism but to a teenager in the 1980s who could see the shallowness of it all but could not express it, Joy Division was wonderful. And because of Ian Curtis' suicide, that added to the authenticity and romance of it.
Of course suicide is never something to romanticize and is a painful tragedy that leaves family and friends with wounds that will never fully heal. The experience of an adult eventually override the idealism of youth.
The simplest way to get Iran to stop compandeering tankers is for the US to do the same. They don't want our "peace", it is true. "Peace with Piracy" is just not compelling to the Iranians. Can you blame them?
Likewise, China benefits from trade near her borders but the US and allies want the ability to turn off the spigot when they wish to force China into concessions, as has been noted in US geopolitical articles for decades now.
Note the Australian nuclear submarines deal: They don't really want to protect their trade with China...from China, they want the ability to control trade between China and her allies. These subs would do part of the job, with the bulk of it done by the USN. Enjoy a comedy skit on that subject: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k