Sublimely Stupid and Infinitely Greedy

The two characteristics I refer to in this title apparently don’t go together very well.

I have read about the global trade in rare earth metals well before today and have been aware of the fact that China, over the years, had scooped up global production of these critical materials.

Once upon a time we had factories here in the US producing these materials and we have a critical need for them. But like many other things we once did, our factories went on a one way trip to, you guessed it, China.

Now we find ourselves in a bind because our main global competitor on trade has a virtual lock in these materials.

So what we end up with is a non-existent production capacity for these materials, a critical need for them and an at risk defense and economic posture because we don’t have them.

The story is here.

This is the perfect primer in the care and feeding of mushrooms. The global trade mantra fed to US voters ever since the great ronnie is a crock. This isn’t and never has been good for the US. It has been bad for us in every way possible. However, it has been very good for those persons who have been on the receiving end of exploiting the global labor market.

So the next time some asshole from corporate America is selling you this shit tell them to go piss up a pipe. They could care less about this country. In any way. Placing this nation in a position where we are reliant upon the world for everything we need is really stupid.

Sublimely stupid greed works perfectly fine if all you’re interested in is making money. But if you happen care about this country, not so much.

5 thoughts on “Sublimely Stupid and Infinitely Greedy

  1. another trope

    As I read this I flashed on my course on the history of Angola – where the US and the Soviet had one it cold war battles by proxy. Of course, most of this had little to do with ideology on the US and the Soviets and mostly to do with the fact that Angola has some of the biggest rare industrial mineral deposits in the world.

    The US spent generations building up a strategy of economic superiority based on the cold war model that there would be one of two rulers, the US or the Soviets. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and China became capitalists under a one party system. Or and India figured out to make a profit. And so on.

    The short of it, the system we are witnessing now started out with a focus on American economic dominance. But as the world changed, but the American corporate strategies remained the same, the profits still rolled in while it Americans weren’t necessarily the better for it.

    1. Exactly. The focus was on profit but was absent a strategic element where we had some assurance that we would not be deprived of whatever it was we needed to sustain our security and economy.

      As it turns out a major feature of that assurance is a requirement to maintain some portion of each of the subpieces as homegrown industries. That assures a leverage to competition and won’t leave you high and dry when issues with global suppliers might be on the rocks. Having only one supplier is dumb.

      1. another trope

        It is one of those rare moments when I agree with Pat Buchanan, when he supported the president with the bail out of the auto industry if for only reason other than that it is one last functional industrial production left here in this country which is necessary to maintain “leverage.” Even if one has supplies, if one has no way internally to do something with those supplies, well, we know the answer.

        (i supported the bailout for other reasons as well)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s