Already on that. In progress.

I have to concede that i believe you might be right about that, sadly.

When the only goal by law is maximize profits, the motivation tends to favor minimizing cost. Change the rules, and enforce a new set of values. Only then will the situation improve.

I pay to avoid ads on Amazon Prime… Now i have to endure unskippable ads every 10 minutes, and my annual fee is up over 50% since i started.

Fuck them. No matter what, these mercantilists will extract everything they can, and they will break any promise or contract they sign as soon as it bemefits them. We, however, cannot do the same.

I had success using openVPN. I set it up, generated certificates, installed it on my phones, tablets, and laptops.

It won’t work when using an external vpn like Express or Mulvad, but while using it, you have secure connection to home. Once done with the home network, turn off the vpn, turn on your commercial vpn.

The problem with these tariffs, implemented in this way, is that the less wealthy has to shoulder the shock and most of the loss of wealth, while the most wealthy solidify their place in society on several levels. The social balance of power further shifts toward the billionaires.

Tarriffs are better applied for protecting existing small and mid-size businesses in danger of being wiped out by huge foreign operations, and protecting industries that have national security roles.

The key here is they would be applied before we lose the capacity - not decades after we already adjusted to the loss.

On this side of the curve it is more productive to subsidize operations that can (re)build the capacity we seek. Biden’s work with TSMC was a prime example. This approach is less disruptive. Even then, targeted tarriffs can be productive.

We could have saved our solar industry. We decided to let China sell priduct at a loss until their competition went out of business or left because no profit could be achieved. This is where tariffs make sense.

Are most people in “the west” worse off today than they were 150 years ago? Are there fewer well functioning democracies than there were then? Has no minority group seen any improvement in their freedom? Has there been no improvement in how people interact with each other? No improvement in poverty?

Yes, of course. Capitalism is an economic framework. A good political framework is needed, just like i said for socialism. This is a failure of the U.S. political implementation not of capitalism as a system of commerce. I would never say capitalism is the answer to all social ills. Your statement feels like a way to say I am wrong, so if I misunderstood, sorry.

Profiteers foregoing the largest source of profit? Not likely.

Oh, like NAFTA!

His subordinates, who else?

It is authoritarian. Communist system devolve to authoritarianism because it is a natural progression (easy to do). Socialists can, but a good democratic political structure makes it harder.

He said Capitalism, not Corporate Capitalism. Pure, unfettered Capitalism leads to the same place facism, communism, and feudalism go.

The issue is “unfettered”. Regulations enforced upon the operation of the markets, maintained by rule of law, enables achievement of greater agency and success upon much larger parts of society.

People understand they can prosper from creating real value, which pushes society toward greater advancements to quality of life and enable more individual freedom than any prior economic and political system.

Kill the illness, not the patient.