Retail On Pace For Most Bankruptcies And Store Closures Ever In One Year: BDO

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 10/6/2020 at 6:52 AM, ronwagn said:

I have, over the years, found it very expensive to get my one acre of lawn mowed so I do it myself. I have never had anyone come to my door to see if I wanted someone to do it, or approach me while I was mowing plus doing all the other garden tasks that we do. I lived on an acre for forty years. I have to seek people out for vacations coverage. Does that seem odd to anyone here? Any kind of simple work is expensive here in one of the lowest wage areas of the country. 

I think the people who do not want to work often live off of others, often their parents. I understand Italy has a similar problem even with young men. 

As far as deliveries, I think they are the future of shopping. If I was a Walmart big shot, I would insist on a great camera system going up and down virtual or real store isles wherever the customer wanted. Information on each item would be available immediately. 

Trying to get everyone to go to college for free is a terrible idea. It made more sense when a smaller number of people went to college for a four year degree. The smartest and most motivated should go for four year and advanced degrees. What we need to do is encourage people to study basic skills in many trades and to get actual work. They will often make a lot more money than someone with a four year degree. They can also start a small service business. A basic RN degree is only two years in most places and they are in high demand. That can lead to higher positions with further education. 

One thing that anyone needs to learn about is actual occupations in high demand. They should also be helped to assess their aptitudes and interests. 

There is an infinite amount of free education available. I have a topic on that.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nkAnzn9R7NH0LqihEeeq4be4ckBgk70YkGKbHsrnbTU/edit

You are so right, Ron.  Since I was aged about 12 or 13 I always looked for lawns to cut, weeds to pull, fields to walk for weeds, gas stations to pump gas and change oil and tires.  Now you have to call a professional or semi-professional to do the same work, and those guys charge a premium.  Good for them, though, hard work still pays, even better in fact.

The sad thing is vocational programs were some of the first to be gutted 30 years ago, then consolidation, then busing to another town/school because of consolidation.  We need to re-fund the vocational programs in high schools across the nation.  I took it for my Jr. and Sr. years, 1/2 day vocational/1/2 day regular classes.  It gave me an absolute launching pad into the world of Aviation Maintenance and then management (A.A.S. & B.S degrees and FAA A&P licenses), two things I had never dreamed of (thought I would at most be a mechanic and possible service manager at a dealership).  Vocational teaches so much more than twisting wrenches and carpentry.

I know deliveries are the way of the future, and that's great.  I just don't know what this young generation is going to do for summer and part time jobs.  Those jobs are character builders and kids need them.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Dan Warnick
servicer

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/5/2020 at 12:17 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Oddly enough, Chinese labor has become sufficiently expensive that manufacturers are moving to the rest of SE Asia. This conveniently builds those countries up so they can help us oppose China.

Also, due to their 1-child policy, China is about to have the worst demographic crisis in history, forcing them to automate to keep things running. 

Interesting times.

The Chinese automated long ago. They have more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=industrial+robots+map&qpvt=industrial+robots+map&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

Most of these maps show robots per million people, but China has 5 times the population of USA.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

The Chinese automated long ago. They have more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=industrial+robots+map&qpvt=industrial+robots+map&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

Most of these maps show robots per million people, but China has 5 times the population of USA.

That's true: China didn't rest on their laurels. They realized the world is evolving and are attempted to take the lead.

There's even more room to automate though. Just because China has a lot of robots doesn't mean they won't install more.

I would be careful with this statistic.  China has many robots per capita, but that doesn't imply that China's manufacturing is particularly automated. E.g.:
1) Having a disproportionate fraction of manufacturing in your economy would bolster this number regardless of how advanced your manufacturing was.
2) Increasing automation is not synonymous with increasing the # of robots. Sometimes it means the opposite. E.g. by using casting, Tesla will eliminate 80ish% of their robots while increasing automation.
3) It depends on what the definition of "robot" is.  Are the PLCs, sensors, and actuators that run refineries, power plants, smelting operations, etc considered "robots"? If so, do we count each individual PLC or actuator as a "robot", or is the control system as a whole considered one "robot"? Depending on your definition, having a lot of "robots" may tell you more about the type of manufacturing than about automation levels.
4) It's possible to have lots of equipment and use it poorly. E.g. I worked for a manufacturing firm that installed the latest, most advanced machine tools in Mexico, where labor is cheaper. Unfortunately, the Mexican programmers weren't smart enough to program both tool heads - much less optimize their paths - so these machines achieved less than half of their potential. It's the same with "robots": sometimes a company has fewer of something because they're better at using it.

I cannot emphasize this enough: details matter.

Edited October 6, 2020 by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Removed an inflammatory aside. Added information.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That's true: China didn't rest on their laurels. They realized the world is evolving and are attempted to take the lead.

There's even more room to automate though. Just because China has a lot of robots doesn't mean they won't install more.

I would be careful with this statistic.  China has many robots per capita, but that doesn't imply that China's manufacturing is particularly automated. E.g.:
1) Having a disproportionate fraction of manufacturing in your economy would bolster this number regardless of how advanced your manufacturing was.
2) Increasing automation is not synonymous with increasing the # of robots. Sometimes it means the opposite. E.g. by using casting, Tesla will eliminate 80ish% of their robots while increasing automation.
3) It depends on what the definition of "robot" is.  Are the PLCs, sensors, and actuators that run refineries, power plants, smelting operations, etc considered "robots"? If so, do we count each individual PLC or actuator as a "robot", or is the control system as a whole considered one "robot"? Depending on your definition, having a lot of "robots" may tell you more about the type of manufacturing than about automation levels.
4) It's possible to have lots of equipment and use it poorly. E.g. I worked for a manufacturing firm that installed the latest, most advanced machine tools in Mexico, where labor is cheaper. Unfortunately, the Mexican programmers weren't smart enough to program both tool heads - much less optimize their paths - so these machines achieved less than half of their potential. It's the same with "robots": sometimes a company has fewer of something because they're better at using it.

I cannot emphasize this enough: details matter.

Interesting. 

From somewhere deep within the cobwebs of my brain, I remember I encountered or did in-depth reading about robotics in manufacturing that had been done simply to attain a certain level of quality,consistently.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Interesting. 

From somewhere deep within the cobwebs of my brain, I remember I encountered or did in-depth reading about robotics in manufacturing that had been done simply to attain a certain level of quality,consistently.

At this point, anything that removes people from the equation improves quality. Dramatically. Early machines were crude. For precise work, you needed skilled labor. By contrast, today's machines are sufficient for most needs. The cases that still require skilled labor are niches too small to justify automating.  We could automate them. It's technically feasible, but the R&D is too expensive. E.g. if you're making a one-off die, you don't set up an automated production line. On the other hand, you do manufacture it with a 3D printer, so even the one-offs are being "automated" to some extent.  Nevermind; automation is consuming everything.

If it can be automated, it is being automated. The rate limiting factor for automating industry is the supply of competent engineers and skilled tradesmen. That machine might reduce labor by 95%, but the 5% you still need must be skilled. It's not an easy bottleneck to overcome - esp. when your education system is trash. It will be overcome though. Even those jobs are being "automated" by making them faster and less skilled.

It's worth mentioning that "lights out" factories exist. Load up the machines, turn off the lights, and walk away. Sometimes for a month at a time. If there's a problem, your internet-connected control system sends a message to the right people, and a team is dispatched to resolve it. It used to be that all manufacturing was low-volume, skilled labor. Then we had low-skilled mass production to produce the same items. Then we had machines fed by low-skilled labor and constantly tended by high skilled labor. Then we had automated systems constantly tended by high-skilled labor. Then the machines became so reliable that teams of skilled labor would rove the factory, there not being enough work for them in a single area. Now the best factories only see a team on occasion. This is the future.

This is also why Tesla is buying engineering firms, like Grohmann. There may only be a handful of engineering firms in the world that can automate at this level. Tesla is identifying and monopolizing them - a brilliant move that both hamstrings competition and gives Tesla a daunting manufacturing advantage. Assemble the world's best automation teams, give them free rein to design the very best factories, and then serially produce those factories around the world. The scale and efficiency of this plan is unprecedented. If you're a Tesla competitor, it's time to worry.

VW is more-or-less doing the same thing Tesla is doing, but less aggressively. Toyota's culture can probably accomplish the same. I can't speak for Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and other Asian manufacturers, but I'd bet the Big 3 and the small European producers go bankrupt.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

17 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

At this point, anything that removes people from the equation improves quality. Dramatically.

Pretty much.

In analytical chemistry automation is done whenever you can afford it.

Accuracy problems are much easier to deal with than precision problems and computers never make transcription errors.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, Wombat said:

The Chinese automated long ago. They have more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=industrial+robots+map&qpvt=industrial+robots+map&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

Most of these maps show robots per million people, but China has 5 times the population of USA.

The vast majority of those robots belong to one firm, Foxconn. They have the most highly automated factories in the world, yet still have one factory that employs over 350,000 people. Imagine that. The vast majority of those people have one task, feeding the robots. They could eliminate 80% of those people with more automation, but the Chinese government won't let them. They can't do it here because the unions and the (local) governments won't let them. It's all about the jobs. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 hours ago, Wombat said:

Indeed Ron, that is the only mistake President Trump has made. He got rid of the TPP (which excluded China) because he falsely believed he could change the policies of the CCP and get a good trade deal from them. He actually believed they could be persuaded to play fair. Thankfully he has come around to reality (unlike the Dems), and hopefully he will win the election and resurrect the TPP. Already, Vietnam is set to import more LNG from the USA than China.

I am not familiar enough with the TPP but imagine there would be room for improvement. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

You are so right, Ron.  Since I was aged about 12 or 13 I always looked for lawns to cut, weeds to pull, fields to walk for weeds, gas stations to pump gas and change oil and tires.  Now you have to call a professional or semi-professional to do the same work, and those guys charge a premium.  Good for them, though, hard work still pays, even better in fact.

The sad thing is vocational programs were some of the first to be gutted 30 years ago, then consolidation, then busing to another town/school because of consolidation.  We need to re-fund the vocational programs in high schools across the nation.  I took it for my Jr. and Sr. years, 1/2 day vocational/1/2 day regular classes.  It gave me an absolute launching pad into the world of Aviation Maintenance and then management (A.A.S. & B.S degrees and FAA A&P licenses), two things I had never dreamed of (thought I would at most be a mechanic and possible servicer manager at a dealership).  Vocational teaches so much more than twisting wrenches and carpentry.

I know deliveries are the way of the future, and that's great.  I just don't know what this young generation si going to do for summer and part time jobs.  Those jobs are character builders and kids need them.

There is still plenty of work mowing lawns and all the stuff you did plus detasseling and learning farm work etc. etc. In the winter, clearing snow for cold climates. I delivered newspapers starting at age 11 on a walking route. That was a lot of weight, delivering to every house for a "throw away". newspaper. 

Glad you had so much success Dan!

Edited October 7, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[ronwagn + 6,290]

14 hours ago, Wombat said:

The Chinese automated long ago. They have more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=industrial+robots+map&qpvt=industrial+robots+map&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

Most of these maps show robots per million people, but China has 5 times the population of USA.

[Wombat + 1,028]

54 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I am not familiar enough with the TPP but imagine there would be room for improvement. 

The TPP (trans Pacific Partnership) was heavily weighted in America's favour, which is why India was holding out, but was scuttled in the last election by both Trump and Hillary in order to appease China one more time. In it's place, Australia came up with the RCEP (regional comprehensive economic partnership), but I don't know if it excludes China. As I said, Trump basically screwed up my attempt to isolate. The TPP was my idea that Obama took up around the same time as his pivot to the East. Trump believed that he could negotiate with China. Anyway, 8 years of negotiations went up in smoke and we are about to start the whole process all over, but you are correct, the TPP had plenty of room for improvement. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

6 minutes ago, Wombat said:

The TPP (trans Pacific Partnership) was heavily weighted in America's favour, which is why India was holding out, but was scuttled in the last election by both Trump and Hillary in order to appease China one more time. In it's place, Australia came up with the RCEP (regional comprehensive economic partnership), but I don't know if it excludes China. As I said, Trump basically screwed up my attempt to isolate. The TPP was my idea that Obama took up around the same time as his pivot to the East. Trump believed that he could negotiate with China. Anyway, 8 years of negotiations went up in smoke and we are about to start the whole process all over, but you are correct, the TPP had plenty of room for improvement. 

PS: If Biden wins, so will China, mainly at America's expense. They will have you snookered once and for all. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

Just now, Wombat said:

PS: If Biden wins, so will China, mainly at America's expense. They will have you snookered once and for all. 

PSS: It will mean that China will be able to "divide and conquer" the US and her allies. It will be every country for themselves and China is by far Australia's largest trading partner. I do not know how long we can keep the ANZUS treaty in place if the US keeps changing it's stance on China. We might have to declare independence from the US.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

There is still plenty of work mowing lawns and all the stuff you did plus detasseling and learning farm work etc. etc. In the winter, clearing snow for cold climates. I delivered newspapers starting at age 11 on a walking route. That was a lot of weight, delivering to every house for a "throw away". newspaper. 

Glad you had so much success Dan!

I know a guy who employs people for jobs like this.  Here's the problem: the average person isn't intelligent enough for the work. Plowing snow? Mowing lawns? Trimming trees? Running farm equipment? That all takes conscientiousness, reasonable intelligence, a work ethic, familiarity with equipment, and the ability to survive outside a climate-controlled building. There's a reason these jobs pay $14-$20/hour instead of minimum wage.

The average unemployed American lacks all of those characteristics. You give power tools - let alone heavy machinery - to these idiots, and they'll kill themselves. Then their family sues you, and you're bankrupt.

By definition, half the population's IQ is below 100. People below 100 used to be farmhands doing repetitive manual labor in static environments. Then we automated farms and moved those people into factories to do... repetitive manual labor in static environments. Now we've automated the factories. There's no work left for half of the population, and there's nothing we can do about it.

There's plenty of work - but only if you're intelligent and motivated. We have a serious demographic problem.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There is still plenty of work mowing lawns and all the stuff you did plus detasseling and learning farm work etc. etc. In the winter, clearing snow for cold climates. I delivered newspapers starting at age 11 on a walking route. That was a lot of weight, delivering to every house for a "throw away". newspaper. 

Glad you had so much success Dan!

Yeah, I did detasseling by machine while pushing busloads of teenagers out from Springfield or Decatur for Dekalb and worked for just about every farmer in the area.  Worked for FS (Farm Services) delivering Anhydrous Ammonia by the tank to farmers during corn planting to help replenish Nitrogen content in the dirt.  Worked for Herrin Fertilizer repairing spray rigs, including those big float-tire ones with the massive spray booms.  Cleared snow for neighbors (summertime grass cutting customers) and plowed roads for the Township, even on Christmas break home from University.  I didn't do the newspaper route; in our town there was a disabled lady that took care of that.  Think about that: a disabled lady took care of newspaper delivery, did an excellent job, never missed a delivery, on time, every time, and she took care of her two boys since the father had done a runner.  I can picture her now, sitting in the middle of the bench seat of her beat up LTD 4-door throwing papers out the passenger side window before the sun cam up.  She took some sort of government check but she didn't sit on her rather HUGE ass and do nothing, she knew what her limits were and she pushed them.  Always work available for those willing to get their hands dirty and get in there.

ALL of it was great work and you got a big sense of accomplishment doing it and looking back at the end of the day.  There was always someone available to get advice from, and there was always someone around to provide "feedback" if you were doing a 1/2-ass job of it.  I loved it all, except it wasn't going to pay much.  So one had to move on, but not without advice from a whole community of people that wanted to see you succeed.  Great stuff.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I am not familiar enough with the TPP but imagine there would be room for improvement. 

Same for me, I am not familiar enough to make an opinion.  However, I'm sure the research wouldn't be too difficult.  I don't have the time right now but will look into it when I have time.  My assumption: it was negotiated by the Obama Administration?  Why would I think it is more in the U.S.'s interest than China's?  Answer: I don't believe it.

But I will have a look and see what the facts are.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 10/6/2020 at 12:00 PM, Wombat said:

Indeed Ron, that is the only mistake President Trump has made. He got rid of the TPP (which excluded China) because he falsely believed he could change the policies of the CCP and get a good trade deal from them. He actually believed they could be persuaded to play fair. Thankfully he has come around to reality (unlike the Dems), and hopefully he will win the election and resurrect the TPP. Already, Vietnam is set to import more LNG from the USA than China.

Ok, so a bit of research reveals the following:

• TPP was to be between 12 Pacific Rim countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam.
• China was not a part of the TPP but it was a large part of why President Trump wasn't willing to join the TPP.  President Trump felt he had to negotiate with China first in order to see which countries could be included in such an agreement, and which side each country fell on (U.S. or China) in a very possible trade war between the U.S. and China.  Simply put, since the TPP group of 12 posed little risk and minimal imbalance to the U.S. as they stood, he felt an all encompassing agreement would be better served by taking on China first.  He campaigned on this and it was no secret, although the Left did not agree with him.
• Unique to the TPP group of 12 was that most of them all already had, and still have, trade agreements with the U.S. whereas previous trade agreements were between countries that did not already have agreements in place.
• The U.S. already has FTAs in place with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore, which together account for over 80% of U.S. goods trade with the would-be TPP group of 12.
• There is no FTA (Foreign Trade Agreement) between all 12 of the would-be TPP partners at this time.
• The largest trading partners of the above group of 12 are the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Japan.
• The United States is the largest would-be TPP market in terms of both GDP and population. In 2012, non-U.S. TPP partners collectively had a GDP of $11.9 trillion, just over 75% of the U.S. level, and a population of 478 million, about 50% larger than the U.S. population. Japan’s entry (pop. 128 million and GDP $6 trillion) would have increased the significance of the agreement on both these metrics.
• USMCA (NAFTA replacement) is between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.  After last minute changes by Pelosi and the House (called USMCA 2.0 by some) the USMCA was considered to be the largest bipartisan FTA victory of both the Republicans and the Democrats in U.S. history.  Trump brought it to the table and he pushed it through, and he deserves the credit since he started the whole NAFTA to USMCA push. 
• USMCA is believed to be much stronger than both the TPP and NAFTA, but is only between these 3 countries.  It is said by many analysts on both the left and the right to be the new basis for future FTAs with other existing or prospective trading partners.
• President Trump led negotiations with Japan which culminated in the new U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019.
• The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SGFTA) went into effect in 2004 and includes regular reviews to take place and amendments to be made.  In short, trade terms continuously improve over time.  At this time, both parties are satisfied with this agreement as it stands.
• The U.S. - Australia Free Trade Agreement went into force in 2005 and includes regular reviews to take place and amendments to be made.  In short, trade terms continuously improve over time.  At this time, both parties are satisfied with this agreement as it stands.
• The agreements with Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Singapore make up the majority of the would-be TPP group of 12's trade value.
• Vietnam does have a FTA with the U.S. called The U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) signed way back in 2001.  However, you are right, they want a new FTA with the U.S.  But according to the following U.S. Chamber of Commerce article, discussions have dissolved amid the trade war with China, which Vietnam is said to have benefitted greatly from (and one assumes due to Covid-19, since the article was written in June of 2019).  U.S.-Vietnam Trade: The Time for an Agreement is Now.

The only real value to a TPP-type deal for the U.S., as far as I can see from today's reading, is that it would provide a more unified front to counter China as a trade group.  From the perspective of the lesser partners, it would give them further access to U.S. markets and possibly somewhat improved trade terms with the U.S. and its other existing partners, both of which would have obvious advantages to those countries.

The above are the results of my own reading and I am sure there are other factors that are not addressed here considering the large group of countries and the trillions of $$ in trade from the group and all of their partners.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/8/2020 at 6:19 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Ok, so a bit of research reveals the following:

• TPP was to be between 12 Pacific Rim countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam.
• China was not a part of the TPP but it was a large part of why President Trump wasn't willing to join the TPP.  President Trump felt he had to negotiate with China first in order to see which countries could be included in such an agreement, and which side each country fell on (U.S. or China) in a very possible trade war between the U.S. and China.  Simply put, since the TPP group of 12 posed little risk and minimal imbalance to the U.S. as they stood, he felt an all encompassing agreement would be better served by taking on China first.  He campaigned on this and it was no secret, although the Left did not agree with him.
• Unique to the TPP group of 12 was that most of them all already had, and still have, trade agreements with the U.S. whereas previous trade agreements were between countries that did not already have agreements in place.
• The U.S. already has FTAs in place with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore, which together account for over 80% of U.S. goods trade with the would-be TPP group of 12.
• There is no FTA (Foreign Trade Agreement) between all 12 of the would-be TPP partners at this time.
• The largest trading partners of the above group of 12 are the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Japan.
• The United States is the largest would-be TPP market in terms of both GDP and population. In 2012, non-U.S. TPP partners collectively had a GDP of $11.9 trillion, just over 75% of the U.S. level, and a population of 478 million, about 50% larger than the U.S. population. Japan’s entry (pop. 128 million and GDP $6 trillion) would have increased the significance of the agreement on both these metrics.
• USMCA (NAFTA replacement) is between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.  After last minute changes by Pelosi and the House (called USMCA 2.0 by some) the USMCA was considered to be the largest bipartisan FTA victory of both the Republicans and the Democrats in U.S. history.  Trump brought it to the table and he pushed it through, and he deserves the credit since he started the whole NAFTA to USMCA push. 
• USMCA is believed to be much stronger than both the TPP and NAFTA, but is only between these 3 countries.  It is said by many analysts on both the left and the right to be the new basis for future FTAs with other existing or prospective trading partners.
• President Trump led negotiations with Japan which culminated in the new U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019.
• The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SGFTA) went into effect in 2004 and includes regular reviews to take place and amendments to be made.  In short, trade terms continuously improve over time.  At this time, both parties are satisfied with this agreement as it stands.
• The U.S. - Australia Free Trade Agreement went into force in 2005 and includes regular reviews to take place and amendments to be made.  In short, trade terms continuously improve over time.  At this time, both parties are satisfied with this agreement as it stands.
• The agreements with Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Singapore make up the majority of the would-be TPP group of 12's trade value.
• Vietnam does have a FTA with the U.S. called The U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) signed way back in 2001.  However, you are right, they want a new FTA with the U.S.  But according to the following U.S. Chamber of Commerce article, discussions have dissolved amid the trade war with China, which Vietnam is said to have benefitted greatly from (and one assumes due to Covid-19, since the article was written in June of 2019).  U.S.-Vietnam Trade: The Time for an Agreement is Now.

The only real value to a TPP-type deal for the U.S., as far as I can see from today's reading, is that it would provide a more unified front to counter China as a trade group.  From the perspective of the lesser partners, it would give them further access to U.S. markets and possibly somewhat improved trade terms with the U.S. and its other existing partners, both of which would have obvious advantages to those countries.

The above are the results of my own reading and I am sure there are other factors that are not addressed here considering the large group of countries and the trillions of $$ in trade from the group and all of their partners.

This is what is happening in Asia now Dan:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-10/RCEP15-marks-the-dawn-of-a-new-trade-era-LugkJ7g5aM/index.html

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

24 minutes ago, Wombat said:

This is what is happening in Asia now Dan:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-10/RCEP15-marks-the-dawn-of-a-new-trade-era-LugkJ7g5aM/index.html

Sorry, and with respect, that is a pretty lame "This is what is happening in Asia now Dan."

The RCEP has been under negotiations for a long time without the U.S. as a participant.  India pulling out of this agreement also shows that it does not represent the best or only way forward with regards to Chinese dominance in control and trade, two separate yet intertwined issues.  The announcement of the pact being signed, with India pulling out at the last minute, signals nothing more than a "better than nothing" result of the long negotiations.  Something of a win the various governments can take home to their masters sort of thing.

In fact, the RCEP stands to benefit China the most, with India being the second biggest beneficiary, both on the trade side ONLY..  The U.S. would stand to "lose" a fair amount of trade as well, which they see as not broad enough if other IP theft, etc. categories are not addressed to make it worthwhile, but the overwhelming "win", if you will, is the SEA countries that would gain only from having the U.S., China and/or India as partner.  All 3 as part of ASEAN, something that is already in place in the ASEAN agreements and agreements between the U.S. and other ASEAN countries, or between China and other ASEAN countries, or between India and other ASEAN countries, or 2 of the 3, or all 3 of the 3.

Don't forget that I write in what's in favor of the U.S., with a secondary look to what is good and healthy for the rest of the Pacific Rim countries in their struggles to both grow economically and to address China's dominance in trade AND all other areas (IP theft, currency manipulation, military dominance, land/sea grabs,etc.).  The RCEP does not address MOST of these issues and keeps China firmly in the driver's seat.  It is no wonder that ASEAN countries want both the U.S. and India involved to protect their interests going forward with the elephant in the room, China.

We all get that the ASEAN countries want the U.S. to re-engage for the above reasons, but at least in Donald Trump's mind, and my own, we should do so only when all factors are taken into account and the balance tips away from China, not further towards it.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Here is an article that further illustrates what I write about:

ORDER FROM CHAOS: China could help stop the freefall in global economic cooperation

(Excerpt)

Yes, the Trump administration also pursues many unacceptable objectives and uses deeply alienating speech. But these do not change the facts facing China; it cannot grow its regional or global influence by acting as an “unencumbered power,” as Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong elegantly put it. Nor can East Asia become a regional model while many see China as a rising threat.

Indeed, China’s interest in collaboration gained momentum in recent years, as suggested by accelerating dialogue with neighboring leaders. The China-Japan-Korea trilateral meetings resumed in 2018 and set the stage for an extended visit by President Xi Jinping to Japan this summer, only to be upended by the new Hong Kong security law. Working with China is becoming a political liability for many regional leaders.

[Wombat + 1,028]

48 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Here is an article that further illustrates what I write about:

ORDER FROM CHAOS: China could help stop the freefall in global economic cooperation

(Excerpt)

Yes, the Trump administration also pursues many unacceptable objectives and uses deeply alienating speech. But these do not change the facts facing China; it cannot grow its regional or global influence by acting as an “unencumbered power,” as Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong elegantly put it. Nor can East Asia become a regional model while many see China as a rising threat.

Indeed, China’s interest in collaboration gained momentum in recent years, as suggested by accelerating dialogue with neighboring leaders. The China-Japan-Korea trilateral meetings resumed in 2018 and set the stage for an extended visit by President Xi Jinping to Japan this summer, only to be upended by the new Hong Kong security law. Working with China is becoming a political liability for many regional leaders.

If Biden gets elected, working with the USA will become a political liability for all regional leaders.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/12/2020 at 8:05 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Here is an article that further illustrates what I write about:

ORDER FROM CHAOS: China could help stop the freefall in global economic cooperation

(Excerpt)

Yes, the Trump administration also pursues many unacceptable objectives and uses deeply alienating speech. But these do not change the facts facing China; it cannot grow its regional or global influence by acting as an “unencumbered power,” as Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong elegantly put it. Nor can East Asia become a regional model while many see China as a rising threat.

Indeed, China’s interest in collaboration gained momentum in recent years, as suggested by accelerating dialogue with neighboring leaders. The China-Japan-Korea trilateral meetings resumed in 2018 and set the stage for an extended visit by President Xi Jinping to Japan this summer, only to be upended by the new Hong Kong security law. Working with China is becoming a political liability for many regional leaders.

I am afraid that half the brass in the Pentagon, and those in US academia, are out of touch with the reality on the ground here in the Asian region:

https://www.9dashline.com/article/what-will-an-indo-pacific-strategy-look-like-under-biden

Trump is the first US President since LBJ to take the stability and security of this region seriously. Biden wants endless "talkfests" that will achieve nothing. He will pursue the "status quo" over Taiwan. If Trump gets re-elected, there will be fireworks, which is what the pivot to Asia was all about. Australia, Japan, Taiwan, the Phillipines, and Indonesia are not prepared to be the meat in the sandwich forever. As Bush once said, "you are either with us, or against us". We are all fed up with the arrogance of both China and the USA. You are not the only countries on the planet, India is rising but they too take an arrogant stance in relation to their military strength. If you are not interested in protecting your own interests in this region, then you can piss off and let China have the Pacific as far as Hawaii which is what they are after. I have always had great respect for you Dan, and I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. I am the one who asked my PM to invite US Marines onto Australian soil. It has been a great success, and the Pentagon is very happy about it. Would not have a hope in hell of defeating China without the base in Darwin and the airfields in Western Australia. What I giveth, I can take away. Watch your step.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

I am afraid that half the brass in the Pentagon, and those in US academia, are out of touch with the reality on the ground here in the Asian region:

https://www.9dashline.com/article/what-will-an-indo-pacific-strategy-look-like-under-biden

Trump is the first US President since LBJ to take the stability and security of this region seriously. Biden wants endless "talkfests" that will achieve nothing. He will pursue the "status quo" over Taiwan. If Trump gets re-elected, there will be fireworks, which is what the pivot to Asia was all about. Australia, Japan, Taiwan, the Phillipines, and Indonesia are not prepared to be the meat in the sandwich forever. As Bush once said, "you are either with us, or against us". We are all fed up with the arrogance of both China and the USA. You are not the only countries on the planet, India is rising but they too take an arrogant stance in relation to their military strength. If you are not interested in protecting your own interests in this region, then you can piss off and let China have the Pacific as far as Hawaii which is what they are after. I have always had great respect for you Dan, and I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. I am the one who asked my PM to invite US Marines onto Australian soil. It has been a great success, and the Pentagon is very happy about it. Would not have a hope in hell of defeating China without the base in Darwin and the airfields in Western Australia. What I giveth, I can take away. Watch your step.

I don't think the brass in the Pentagon are out of step, but they do have politics to deal with and in the case of Trump they have shown they are inept at it, which your linked article goes to some length at describing.  They are still, apparently, coming to terms with how to deal with a President that has no real military experience or deep understanding how best to use it.  I see that as a positive in many ways, such as not entering conflict for less than worthy reasons, which the U.S. has done far too many times in the last few decades, again, IMHO.  Where the Pentagon has failed, and yes I do mean failed, is that they let their arrogance take control of the discussion and put up fierce, but petty nonetheless, challenges against the President's authority as the CIC and the balance of power that it represents.  The Pentagon seems to have developed the strategy, as far as how to deal with Trump, of let's just wait until he leaves office and then deal with the next, presumably, more cooperative administration.  What they need to do, IMO, is find a middleman between the Pentagon and the Trump that shows respect to his office, and ego, while presenting him with opportunities to strengthen his positions, which I find highly in line with what the U.S. at least needs to advance.

Thanks for that article, by the way.  It goes much more to the core of what I believe to be the issues of importance than the original offering of the RECP and its perceived impact.

U.S. academia, on the other hand and IMHO, is out of touch with a number of realities, China's dominance, and belligerent actions towards dominance, being just one, albeit major, area.

I understand the article you link this time is written in an attempt to understand how things might be different under Biden, but I don't think it properly gauges the man (Biden) at this time.  The article does seem to capture his previous positions and possible future positions, IF he was still in control of his faculties, which I do not believe he is.  He is barely in control of who controls him at this point.

Simply put, I believe any other administration will lean heavily towards placating China, essentially "let's hold hand and dance in a circle to make this a better day", utter bullshit.  Trump is an opportunity that I strongly suggest the Asia-Pacific Region not miss if they want to protect their collective be-hinds.  Trump needs special work and special convincing, given his ego and how most other world leaders have treated him with disdain, or utter disrespect at every turn.  But if they want a strong response to China, Trump is their man and their best chance at getting what they want in this respect.  I believe if the regional heads sat down with Trump and showed a true willingness to go all-in with him, that he would gladly rise up to lead.  I believe if the Pentagon came to the table with plans which clearly would put China back in its place without a 10-20 year war attached to it, Trump would gladly rise up to lead.  Will these two things happen?  I certainly hope so.

I agree with your stance on India.  IMO, India is hanging by a thread just keeping themselves relevant (and feeding itself) and they are mainly scared to death of the still rising China.  They are not leaders and they cannot be depended on in any significant way.

I am genuinely saddened that you felt I was being condescending towards you.  If I am guilty at all, it was in that I was disappointed when you threw one article at me about a regional trade agreement, that mainly failed, and said "here is what's happening."  We have too many one-article wonders around here and I don't normally see you as being guilty of that.  Nice to see we have taken it up a notch, I hope you'll agree.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

I don't think the brass in the Pentagon are out of step, but they do have politics to deal with and in the case of Trump they have shown they are inept at it, which your linked article goes to some length at describing.  They are still, apparently, coming to terms with how to deal with a President that has no real military experience or deep understanding how best to use it.  I see that as a positive in many ways, such as not entering conflict for less than worthy reasons, which the U.S. has done far too many times in the last few decades, again, IMHO.  Where the Pentagon has failed, and yes I do mean failed, is that they let their arrogance take control of the discussion and put up fierce, but petty nonetheless, challenges against the President's authority as the CIC and the balance of power that it represents.  The Pentagon seems to have developed the strategy, as far as how to deal with Trump, of let's just wait until he leaves office and then deal with the next, presumably, more cooperative administration.  What they need to do, IMO, is find a middleman between the Pentagon and the Trump that shows respect to his office, and ego, while presenting him with opportunities to strengthen his positions, which I find highly in line with what the U.S. at least needs to advance.

Thanks for that article, by the way.  It goes much more to the core of what I believe to be the issues of importance than the original offering of the RECP and its perceived impact.

U.S. academia, on the other hand and IMHO, is out of touch with a number of realities, China's dominance, and belligerent actions towards dominance, being just one, albeit major, area.

I understand the article you link this time is written in an attempt to understand how things might be different under Biden, but I don't think it properly gauges the man (Biden) at this time.  The article does seem to capture his previous positions and possible future positions, IF he was still in control of his faculties, which I do not believe he is.  He is barely in control of who controls him at this point.

Simply put, I believe any other administration will lean heavily towards placating China, essentially "let's hold hand and dance in a circle to make this a better day", utter bullshit.  Trump is an opportunity that I strongly suggest the Asia-Pacific Region not miss if they want to protect their collective be-hinds.  Trump needs special work and special convincing, given his ego and how most other world leaders have treated him with disdain, or utter disrespect at every turn.  But if they want a strong response to China, Trump is their man and their best chance at getting what they want in this respect.  I believe if the regional heads sat down with Trump and showed a true willingness to go all-in with him, that he would gladly rise up to lead.  I believe if the Pentagon came to the table with plans which clearly would put China back in its place without a 10-20 year war attached to it, Trump would gladly rise up to lead.  Will these two things happen?  I certainly hope so.

I agree with your stance on India.  IMO, India is hanging by a thread just keeping themselves relevant (and feeding itself) and they are mainly scared to death of the still rising China.  They are not leaders and they cannot be depended on in any significant way.

I am genuinely saddened that you felt I was being condescending towards you.  If I am guilty at all, it was in that I was disappointed when you threw one article at me about a regional trade agreement, that mainly failed, and said "here is what's happening."  We have too many one-article wonders around here and I don't normally see you as being guilty of that.  Nice to see we have taken it up a notch, I hope you'll agree.

Gentlemen, please keep the Convo going as it has been. Fact is, these agreements are there primarily to give bunglecrats something to do and businesses hurdles to overcome. Playing by the rules will always be a challenge no matter who is in charge, or what has been written on a piece of paper. China for one, has figured out that it doesn't matter what they sign, since if they have no intention of honoring the agreement they won't. 

The 4 year presidency, while a blessing in some respects has become a curse in others. Not just the military, but everyone in government has learned to play the "wait out this administration" game. Unfortunately under Obama over 150 generals and admirals were removed if they didn't meet his "purity" test.  In other words, he purged the military of independents and republicans. The current head of the joint Chiefs of Staff is refusing to accept an order from the Commander in Chief to draw down troops in Afghanistan. My nephew was stationed there, and frankly, we should have left a long time ago.

A general refusing orders from his CIC used to be a court martial event. But don't think every general in the military isn't fully aware of what happened to General Flynn and how he got railroaded. The only thing of real value to a general is the power he holds today and the pension he'll get to spend tomorrow. They all watched both threatened in the Flynn debacle, and a good man ruined. So given where the real Deep State power lies, why stick your neck out? They're following orders all right, orders from what the Military Industrial Complex has morphed into. Unfortunately that isn't the current CIC. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Gentlemen, please keep the Convo going as it has been. Fact is, these agreements are there primarily to give bunglecrats something to do and businesses hurdles to overcome. Playing by the rules will always be a challenge no matter who is in charge, or what has been written on a piece of paper. China for one, has figured out that it doesn't matter what they sign, since if they have no intention of honoring the agreement they won't. 

The 4 year presidency, while a blessing in some respects has become a curse in others. Not just the military, but everyone in government has learned to play the "wait out this administration" game. Unfortunately under Obama over 150 generals and admirals were removed if they didn't meet his "purity" test.  In other words, he purged the military of independents and republicans. The current head of the joint Chiefs of Staff is refusing to accept an order from the Commander in Chief to draw down troops in Afghanistan. My nephew was stationed there, and frankly, we should have left a long time ago.

A general refusing orders from his CIC used to be a court martial event. But don't think every general in the military isn't fully aware of what happened to General Flynn and how he got railroaded. The only thing of real value to a general is the power he holds today and the pension he'll get to spend tomorrow. They all watched both threatened in the Flynn debacle, and a good man ruined. So given where the real Deep State power lies, why stick your neck out? They're following orders all right, orders from what the Military Industrial Complex has morphed into. Unfortunately that isn't the current CIC. 

Trump promised to drain the swamp. Any blame assigned to the "deep state" is now attributable to trump's incompetence to fulfill his election promise.

You can't have it both ways; either trump is an ineffectual leader or the "deep state" lacks power. 

"The buck stops here."

 

Unlike cheating at golf, trump gets no mulligans this time.  The Generals probably want him gone too; irresponsible hothead who calls lost soldiers losers.