1. We are being fooled about technology in China (and Asia generally). Why? To promote war? Or serve some other agenda?
2. We are told that China test launched a hypersonic missile in 2021, but only managed to launch commercial flights of its own aircraft (Comac C919) in 2023. Really?
3. The hypersonic missile test development site (wind tunnel) was funded by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2016. Is this new arms race even real?
4. Two years ago China went from producing 7 nm chips to 14 nm when the U.S. pulled chip technologists out.
According to Larry Fink these ‘new Mainers’ will be a negative drag on Maine’s future. In a world of AI and robotics, which is fast arriving, low-skilled, low-IQ, uneducable or unassimilable workers will not do Maine (or any other state) any good at all. Moreover, we all know they have been flown into Portland at taxpayer expense for one reason and one reason only — to vote for Democrats. ABN
Good news for Japan. Does not pay to import low-IQ and unassimilable workers. ABN
UPDATE: Most readers of this site probably cringe at mention of Larry Fink. I posted this clip because he actually made a good argument against mass immigration. If his faction of the elite can see this, they may moderate their avaricious zeal for destroying Western civilization. I hope everyone can see and absorb what Fink is saying. As we move rapidly into a very new and unprecedented future, our wants and needs will change. A good way to understand the present is to imagine the future and how to get to a good one. ABN
Go ahead and make some money. Elevator Speech: “MAGAnomics is essentially ‘inverse BRICS.’”
Everyone who is a pragmatic critical thinker knows that China will: subsidize their targeted sectors and devalue their currency to lower the tariff impact of exports to the USA. Beijing controls the banks, and they did this before.
As a result, the dollar value increases and imports cost less.
The Chinese imports then enter the USA at a lower price consistent with Beijing’s cost estimate as a tariff offset. Chinese actuaries are really good at this. China takes in a lower price but retains access to the USA market. That’s just how it works. The importers pay the tariff with a lowered price with a higher valued dollar. Essentially stasis is achieved in a stand-off.
Then…..
EU industrial products to Chinese manufacturing plants start to contract due to China’s aggressive cost cutting initiatives. The EU gets angry about the impact to their economy and looks for alternatives. The EU then follows the same path as China and devalues their central bank currency; further pressuring the dollar to an upward price.
Exports to the EU are now more expensive, but imports from the EU to the USA are now cheaper. Again, the EU goal is stasis.
Both scenarios create cheaper USA imports despite the Trump tariffs. However, on the EU side President Trump then ends the Marshal plan and executes a program of “tariff reciprocity” against the EU. More frustration and gritted teeth by Brussels.
…@EricRWeinstein was employed by the UN to produce a document entitled: ‘Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration’ Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives”, Weinstein wrote:
“When migrant and native workers of comparable value to an employer are asked to compete, it is to be expected that the employer will take the applicant who costs him/her less. If, however, the respective terms of employment of the native and the migrant workers differ considerably, the employer may develop a preference between otherwise equal candidates. If migrant workers are not permitted to seek alternative work in the host country, then their “company loyalty” is reduced to a matter of law and regulation. In such circumstances, employers know that they will not have to earn migrant worker loyalty with the expenditure of resources that would be needed in the case of native workers. Thus it is to be expected that in systems tethering migrant workers to their employer-sponsors, some migrants will out-compete natives of comparable or greater value simply by virtue of the terms of employment set by the MWP. Since this is precipitated by a rational market response on the part of native employers, this consequence must be seen as a natural, if unfortunate, by-product of direct migrant sponsorship.”
American Buddhist Net 