If we really wanted to get off of China we would need significantly higher tariffs. Sometimes that's called "decoupling." It's not really good economic policy though maybe you would disagree. But it can be good moral policy, to not have slave produced goods in your market. There is even a semi free market argument for it. Having goods in your market produced through state-sponsored slavery isn't exactly free market either. So if you blocked off China, looking at the US economy as a single environment it would be more free market even if in a global sense it is less free-market.
No country has a free market and your last point is the ultimate goal of sustainability in my eyes. Australia is a good example of this, because the laws and expectations here are so traumatic to industry that you can't just enter the market as you wish. It is impossible. You will be taxed to death unless you go over seas. We have no more car industry here because of this. Victoria is even worse, because we are the most taxed state here. You can not manufacture here because if you do, the business manufacturing in the state next door is making more money than you even after they have to pay to ship back here. You can't do it. Yet, if Australia shut down its borders completely, we have the resources and ability to be completely independent and that would allow a true freemarket within the country.
Im a fan of both methods of "decoupling" (I am pretty sure you have the wrong term here). I will accept cold turkey removal of forgein trade or a gradual reduction over many years. I enjoy seeing globalists suffer and populations suffer for their sins, but at the same time if you want a country to remain stable a slow release is much better.
Im pro slavery, most specifically in regards to indentured servitude and prison productivity. I also see most modern employment practices no different to slavery, so I dont care for that part. You think its slavery to employ some chinese kid for $5 a week, he thinks youre a savour because now he can buy food for the week.
A Chinese kid making an income is not slavery. It is child labor but child labor is based. You are right that it is an improvement to his condition or he wouldn't sign up for it. The slavery in China I'm referring to is tied to the mass incarceration of Uyghurs.
You are right that there are no pure free markets right now. Because the second someone does anything that isn't free market the whole market is not a free market and everything is connected. The only way you can get back to a free market is by putting up barriers that are themselves not free-market. All you can do is get closer to freedom and fairness. But getting closer is worthwhile since it is all you can do.
Decoupling is a fairly accepted economics term. Here are a few articles using the word in relation to China and tariffs.
China attacks every one they don't like, who cares. Another bunch of muslims. WHatever. Yeah yeah, I know they are attacking CHristians too, but there's millions of them holding out well.
If you want, you can say the moment you are taxed it is not a free market.
Decoupling is the removal at the expense of un sustainability. Or the idea that if you remove it, the system will be strained because of it. You mentioned in regards to needing high tarifs. Higher tarifs is not decoupling in of itself. You could say its related, but I wouldnt even bother, higher tarrifs just cause a shift in resources type, not increase or decrease anything. Its just economic philosophy anyway.
Log in
You have to suffer when you come off the cocaine.
If we really wanted to get off of China we would need significantly higher tariffs. Sometimes that's called "decoupling." It's not really good economic policy though maybe you would disagree. But it can be good moral policy, to not have slave produced goods in your market. There is even a semi free market argument for it. Having goods in your market produced through state-sponsored slavery isn't exactly free market either. So if you blocked off China, looking at the US economy as a single environment it would be more free market even if in a global sense it is less free-market.
No country has a free market and your last point is the ultimate goal of sustainability in my eyes. Australia is a good example of this, because the laws and expectations here are so traumatic to industry that you can't just enter the market as you wish. It is impossible. You will be taxed to death unless you go over seas. We have no more car industry here because of this. Victoria is even worse, because we are the most taxed state here. You can not manufacture here because if you do, the business manufacturing in the state next door is making more money than you even after they have to pay to ship back here. You can't do it. Yet, if Australia shut down its borders completely, we have the resources and ability to be completely independent and that would allow a true freemarket within the country.
Im a fan of both methods of "decoupling" (I am pretty sure you have the wrong term here). I will accept cold turkey removal of forgein trade or a gradual reduction over many years. I enjoy seeing globalists suffer and populations suffer for their sins, but at the same time if you want a country to remain stable a slow release is much better.
Im pro slavery, most specifically in regards to indentured servitude and prison productivity. I also see most modern employment practices no different to slavery, so I dont care for that part. You think its slavery to employ some chinese kid for $5 a week, he thinks youre a savour because now he can buy food for the week.
A Chinese kid making an income is not slavery. It is child labor but child labor is based. You are right that it is an improvement to his condition or he wouldn't sign up for it. The slavery in China I'm referring to is tied to the mass incarceration of Uyghurs.
You are right that there are no pure free markets right now. Because the second someone does anything that isn't free market the whole market is not a free market and everything is connected. The only way you can get back to a free market is by putting up barriers that are themselves not free-market. All you can do is get closer to freedom and fairness. But getting closer is worthwhile since it is all you can do.
Decoupling is a fairly accepted economics term. Here are a few articles using the word in relation to China and tariffs.
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-tariffs-will-trade-war-hasten-us-china-decoupling/a-72215811
https://asiatimes.com/2025/05/us-eases-trade-war-pursues-strategic-decoupling-from-china/
https://www.webpronews.com/teslas-great-decoupling-phasing-out-china-parts-to-dodge-tariffs-and-reshape-ev-supply-chains/
Uyghurs? I barely know her....
China attacks every one they don't like, who cares. Another bunch of muslims. WHatever. Yeah yeah, I know they are attacking CHristians too, but there's millions of them holding out well.
If you want, you can say the moment you are taxed it is not a free market.
Decoupling is the removal at the expense of un sustainability. Or the idea that if you remove it, the system will be strained because of it. You mentioned in regards to needing high tarifs. Higher tarifs is not decoupling in of itself. You could say its related, but I wouldnt even bother, higher tarrifs just cause a shift in resources type, not increase or decrease anything. Its just economic philosophy anyway.