Climate: The cost of competing with China

"The Biden administration is betting that new China tariffs will be politically popular, even if they could slow the transition from fossil fuels. The cost of competing with China President Biden announced this week that he planned to sharply increase the taxes America imposes on electric vehicles, solar cells, advanced batteries and other climate technologies imported from China.  Labor groups cheered him on, unsurprisingly: Those tariffs would make Chinese green technology more expensive for Americans, which could protect American jobs in the clean energy sector. Politically speaking, support from labor groups like the United Auto Workers is a win for the president, who needs strong union backing in his rematch election this fall against Donald Trump. But some climate activists and economists say the tariffs could slow the fight against global warming at a time when global temperatures continue to smash records. They want Americans to buy E.V.s and solar panels and anything else that will speed the transition away from fossil fuels, with less regard to where those products come from. Biden’s tariffs, including a 100 percent rate on E.V.s, would make it nearly impossible for some Chinese products to compete in the United States on price. “Tens of millions of low-cost E.V.s being sold around the world in the next few years would hugely help advance the effort to slow emissions,” Dean Baker, an economist at the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote in a blog post this week. “If China wants to subsidize this process, we should be thanking them.” ‘Supply chain risk is climate risk’ The simple read of the situation is that Biden’s re-election efforts are taking priority over his climate efforts. He needs union voters to win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all swing states, and if the price of those votes is more expensive electric trucks and a slower path of emissions reduction, so be it." [1] Biden is desperately trying to save his legacy, since his subsidies to American green industries are getting destroyed by China's unbeatable global competition now, as we speak. Gigantic, desperate, and useless Biden's custom duties clearly prove this. This all is the simplest explanation of Biden's behavior. "The simplest explanation is usually the best one" - states a well known principle of good thinking called Occam's razor.  1. Climate: The cost of competing with China. Tankersley, Jim; Gelles, David.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. May 16, 2024.

 

 

Why do so many people around the world reject liberalism?

"Liberal societies can seem a little tepid and uninspiring. Liberalism tends to be nonmetaphysical; it avoids the big questions like: Why are we here? Who made the cosmos? It nurtures the gentle bourgeois virtues like kindness and decency but not, as Lefebvre allows, some of the loftier virtues, like bravery, loyalty, piety and self-sacrificial love.

Liberal society can be a little lonely. By putting so much emphasis on individual choice, pure liberalism attenuates social bonds. In a purely liberal ethos, an invisible question lurks behind every relationship: Is this person good for me? Every social connection becomes temporary and contingent. Even your attitude toward yourself can be instrumentalized: I am a resource I invest in for desired outcomes.

When societies become liberal all the way down, they neglect a core truth: For liberal societies to prosper they need to rest on institutions that precede individual choice — families, faiths, attachments to a sacred place. People are not formed by institutions to which they are lightly attached. Their souls and personalities are formed within the primal bonds to this specific family, that specific ethnic culture, this piece of land with its long history to my people, to that specific obedience to the God of my ancestors.

These life-altering attachments are usually not individually chosen. They are usually woven, from birth, into the fabric of people’s being — into their traditions, cultures and sense of personhood.

The great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explained the difference between the sort of contracts that flourish in the world of individual choice and covenants that flourish best in those realms that are deeper than individual utility: “A contract is about interests. A covenant is about identity. It is about you and me coming together to form an ‘us.’ That is why contracts benefit, but covenants transform.”

The great strength of the authoritarians who oppose liberal principles, from Trump to Xi to Hamas, is that they play straight into the primordial sources of meaning that are deeper than individual preference — faith, family, soil and flag. The authoritarians tell their audiences that the liberals want to take all that is solid — from your morality to your gender — and reduce it to the instability of a personal whim. They tell their throngs that the liberals are threatening their vestigial loyalties. They continue: We need to break the rules in order to defend these sacred bonds. We need a strongman to defend us from social and moral chaos.

These have proved to be powerful arguments. One recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 52 percent of Republicans believe that America needs “a strong president who should be allowed to rule without too much interference from courts and Congress.”" [1]

1. The Authoritarians Have the Momentum. Brooks, David.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. May 16, 2024.

Kodėl tiek daug žmonių visame pasaulyje atmeta liberalizmą?

   „Liberalios visuomenės gali atrodyti šiek tiek drumstos ir neįkvepiančios. Liberalizmas linkęs būti nemetafizinis; jis vengia tokių didelių klausimų: kodėl mes čia? Kas sukūrė kosmosą? 

 

Jis puoselėja švelnias buržuazines dorybes, tokias, kaip gerumas ir padorumas, bet ne, kaip nusileidžia Lefebvre'as, kai kurios aukštesnės dorybės, pavyzdžiui, drąsa, ištikimybė, pamaldumas ir pasiaukojanti meilė.

 

     Liberali visuomenė gali būti šiek tiek vienišų žmonių būrys. Tiek daug dėmesio skirdamas individualiam pasirinkimui, grynas liberalizmas susilpnina socialinius ryšius. Grynai liberaliame etose už kiekvienų santykių slypi nematomas klausimas: ar šis žmogus man geras? Kiekvienas socialinis ryšys tampa laikinas ir sąlyginis. Netgi jūsų požiūris į save gali būti naudingas: aš esu šaltinis, į kurį investuoju, siekdamas norimų rezultatų.

 

     Kai visuomenės tampa liberalios iki galo, jos nepaiso pagrindinės tiesos: kad liberalios visuomenės klestėtų, jos turi remtis institucijomis, kurios yra prieš asmeninį pasirinkimą – šeimas, tikėjimus, prisirišimą prie šventos vietos. Žmones formuoja ne institucijos, prie kurių jie lengvai prisirišę. Jų sielos ir asmenybės formuojasi per pirminius ryšius su šia specifine šeima, ta specifine etnine kultūra, šiuo žemės sklypu, turinčiu ilgą istoriją mano žmonėms, tuo specifiniu paklusnumu mano protėvių Dievui.

 

     Šie gyvenimą keičiantys priedai paprastai nėra pasirenkami atskirai. Paprastai jie nuo gimimo yra įausti į žmonių esybės audinį – į jų tradicijas, kultūrą ir asmenybės jausmą.

 

     Didysis rabinas Džonatanas Sacksas paaiškino skirtumą tarp sutarčių, klestinčių individualaus pasirinkimo pasaulyje, ir sandorų, kurios geriausiai klesti tose srityse, kurios yra gilesnės už individualų naudingumą: „Sutartis yra apie interesus. Sandora yra susijusi su tapatybe. Kalbama apie tai, kaip tu ir aš susiburiame į „mus“. Štai kodėl sutartys naudingos, bet sandoros keičiasi."

 

     Didžioji autoritarų, besipriešinančių liberaliems principams, nuo Trumpo iki Xi iki „Hamas“ stiprybė yra ta, kad jie žaidžia tiesiai į pirminius prasmės šaltinius, kurie yra gilesni už individualų pasirinkimą – tikėjimą, šeimą, dirvą ir vėliavą. Autoritarai sako jų auditorijai, kad liberalai nori paimti visa, kas tvirta – nuo jūsų moralės iki jūsų lyties – ir sumažinti tai iki asmeninio užgaidos nestabilumo. Jie sako jų minioms, kad liberalai kelia grėsmę jų menkam lojalumui. Jie tęsia: turime pažeisti taisykles, kad apgintume šiuos šventus ryšius. Mums reikia stipruolio, kuris apgintų mus nuo socialinio ir moralinio chaoso.

 

     Tai pasirodė esą galingi argumentai. Viena neseniai atlikta Reuters/Ipsos apklausa parodė, kad 52 procentai JAV respublikonų mano, kad Amerikai reikia „stipraus prezidento, kuriam turėtų būti leista valdyti be per didelio teismų ir Kongreso kišimosi.“ [1]

1. The Authoritarians Have the Momentum. Brooks, David.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. May 16, 2024.

What should we, who voted for peace in Lithuania and for Eduardas Vaitkus, do now in the EU Parliament elections?

 It turns out that this aspiration of ours is supported by many people in the big cities of Lithuania (Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda). That's good, but there are a lot of us living there, it's hard to figure out that politics. It turns out that the Polish-speaking residents of Lithuania enthusiastically support this aspiration of ours. Most of them voted for peace in Lithuania and for E. Vaitkus.

 

Their main representative is Valdemaras Tomaševskis (born March 3, 1965 in Vilnius) - Lithuanian politician, chairman of LLRA-KŠS.

 

Therefore, the easy move is to double down in our actions.

 

 Let's choose their candidates for the European Union Parliament. Peace is now the most important thing that is needed for the European Union and Lithuania to recover.