June 10, 202612:07 PM EDT:
WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he might not renew the USMCA free trade deal with Canada and Mexico. Speaking at the White House, the president said he was discussing the matter with Mexican and Canadian leaders.
Reporting by Bo Erickson and Gram Slattery; Editing by Doina Chiacu
archive.org archive link: https://web.archive.org/save/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Ftrump-says-he-might-not-renew-usmca-2026-06-10%2F
So basically, you agree with Trump. When you buy stuff from a foreign country you’re losing.
In this instance, I agree with the affectation he has decided to cosplay for entirely different reasons against the advice of all of his corporate masters.
When you buy from a foreign country what can be made in your country, you are directly causing the loss of well-paid jobs in your country, and aiding the exploitation of a developing country (statistically.)
There’s a reason China has done so well while the entirety of the western world has become worse for the average inhabitant. Every time a job is outsourced, every time you buy that foreign thing that could’ve been made at home, you are directly enriching another country and that money will never be seen in your country ever again. You do that enough times and hey, you have stretches of countryside full of small ghost towns that decayed after the employer had to shut down, and no social mobility.
One could argue, but it’d basically be repeating all the same free trade debates that have happened in the past. Anyone unfamiliar can search “balance of payments” or “comparative advantage”. The counterargument boils down to how those Canadian dollars you spent on whatever exporter eventually come back to the mint, basically.
What might be news to people is that China’s had the most K-shaped economy of all, since about 2000. Sure, they have manufacturing jobs… that you’ll never, ever work your way out of. And then a few million people out of 1.5 billion who have the connections, and can afford a Western-ish style of living.
Except the purpose isn’t social mobility for most Chinese people. Remember the ‘躺平’ ‘lie flat’ propaganda movement the west loved talking about a few years ago? Yeah that wasn’t new, or temporary, nor did it ever go away (and no it’s not illegal). That’s just how most Chinese people have been seeing life after getting up to ‘western’ standards (I would argue a roof, consistent meals, cheap electronics, and free healthcare is closer to the western standard than not, and that covers ~900 million people.) Yes there is a rising upper middle and upper class, but also the living standards of the bottom 50% are better than more than 150 countries and that’s rising just about as quickly.
These facts skew the traditional western reporting of economic health, because western economists assume everyone wants to grow infinitely, and that’s just not the case.
Suuure. Chinese people enjoy the fact that all the money is going to their rich. /s
No, they’re not, that’s what K-shaped means.
would either of you care to share unbiased evidence supporting your statements?
The World Inequality Database. I’d do a TL;DR, but I’d be reinventing the wheel.
It’s important to know this is about wealth, while @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca is going by income. If you’re out to defend China, you could say sure, they own less and less but the government will look after them, and make sure wages stay high. If that’s a good bet in light of history is another question.
Thank you. This is interesting information.
K-shaped means the bottom half (or some large threshold) is getting poorer. China’s bottom half appears to have rapidly growing real wages, while the top is growing faster. Most western bottom halves were fine with this arrangement, until their real wages stopped growing in the 70-80s.
I’m not super happy with either scenario but there’s a reason the majority was okay with it for decades. That was the whole deal in the New Deal.