“whether they are open or closed, many American ports rank among the least efficient in the entire world. The ports in New York, Baltimore, and Houston—three of the largest of the 36 ports that could have been shut down by the ILA strike—are ranked no higher than 300th place (out of 348 in total) in the World Bank’s most recent report on port efficiency. Not a single U.S. port ranks in the top 50. Slow-moving ports act as bottlenecks to commerce both coming and going, which “reduces the competitiveness of the country…and hinders economic growth and poverty reduction,” the World Bank notes.”
…
“The problem is that American ports need more automation just to catch up with what’s considered normal in the rest of the world. For example, automated cranes in use at the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands since the 1990s are 80 percent faster than the human-operated cranes used at the port in Oakland, California, according to an estimate by one trade publication.
It’s worth noting that the lack of automation, and the resulting inefficiencies, at American ports was a major factor in the supply chain issues that popped up during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.”
…
“Additionally, the tradeoff between automation and jobs is not a zero-sum game. A study published in 2022 found that the partial automation of the Port of Los Angeles had resulted in “significant gains in throughput, productivity, and efficiency, resulting in more hours than ever for workers.” As with other forms of automation, some job losses are inevitable, but efficiency gains benefit dockworkers too—and the truckers, manufacturers, and others in the supply chain who are waiting for goods to be loaded or unloaded.
Indeed, if maximizing the number of union jobs at ports was the highest value to society, Daggett and the ILA might want to change their demands. Why not demand a ban on cranes, forklifts, and tractor-trailers too? It would take a lot more workers to unload a freighter if everything had to be lifted by hand, after all.”
“What plainly irks the governor is how Trump and Vance keep calling the Haitians “illegal” migrants.
“To say that these people are illegal is just not right, you can’t make up stuff like that,” DeWine told me.
He repeatedly criticized President Biden’s handling of the border, but pointed out that’s a different matter than the Haitians who are in the country with Temporary Protected Status.
“Throughout my entire lifetime we’ve had programs similar to that that,” DeWine said, alluding to the Hungarians and Cubans who fled conflict for America. “We have said we’re going to let certain people in because of the great oppression that they are feeling, or the danger they are feeling. We ought to be a country that is capable of doing that.”
Of course, that would be to presuppose that such nuances matter to Trump and Vance, particularly when portraying migrants as threats is so politically rewarding in the heat of a campaign.”
Vance won the debate on sounding better despite his lies and his evasion of questions. However, he couldn’t say that he would accept an election that Trump lost. Democracy doesn’t work if our leaders can’t accept lost elections.
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon may not go well. Just pushing Hezbollah to the Litani River will be tough due to varied and difficult terrain and hardened Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah can operate defensively despite losing several leaders.
“Special counsel Jack Smith has outlined new details of former President Donald Trump and his allies’ sweeping and “increasingly desperate” efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, in a blockbuster court filing Wednesday aimed at defending Smith’s prosecution of Trump following the Supreme Court’s July immunity ruling.
Trump intentionally lied to the public, state election officials, and his own vice president in an effort to cling to power after losing the election, while privately describing some of the claims of election fraud as “crazy,” prosecutors alleged in the 165-page filing.
“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office,” the filing said. “With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost.”
When Trump’s effort to overturn the election through lawsuits and fraudulent electors failed to change the outcome of the election, prosecutors allege that the former president fomented violence, with prosecutors describing Trump as directly responsible for “the tinderbox that he purposely ignited on January 6.”
“The defendant also knew that he had only one last hope to prevent Biden’s certification as President: the large and angry crowd standing in front of him. So for more than an hour, the defendant delivered a speech designed to inflame his supporters and motivate them to march to the Capitol,” Smith wrote.
The lengthy filing — which includes an 80-page summary of the evidence gathered by investigators — outlines multiple instances in which Trump allegedly heard from advisers who disproved his allegations, yet continued to spread his claims of outcome-determinative voter fraud, prosecutors said.
“It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell,” Trump allegedly told members of his family following the 2020 election, the filing said.”
The Indo-Pacific is important to the U.S. for economic, security, and credibility reasons. If China dominates East and Southeast Asia, it could cut off trade and investment to, from, and through the region. This could greatly weaken the United States and make Americans poorer. With China’s home base secure, it can focus on extending its power outward to Africa, the Middle East, Hawaii, the American Pacific coast, the Caribbean, etc.. The U.S. would be seen as abandoning partners and allies in the region, and the U.S. would not be trusted around the world, which would weaken U.S. security and cost the country economically.
But, if the U.S. left the region, would China dominate? China is surrounded by strong countries that don’t want to be dominated. Many Southeast and East Asian countries identify themselves partly by not being Chinese. Countries want to be independent and free from the domination of any power, especially one that has shown its willingness to throw its weight around for its unenlightened self-interest. Without the U.S., it’s possible that Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, and India would band together, cooperate, and massively build up their militaries to serve as a successful deterrent to Chinese hegemony.
The problem with that notion is, the countries of the region show little sign of doing it. India mostly cares about India, not leading a balancing coalition in East and Southeast Asia. Many Southeast Asian countries already show signs that they’d submit and bandwagon rather than taking on the daunting task of balancing China. Despite some issues, they don’t see China as a threat. South Korea has its hands full with North Korea, and already handles China with soft gloves. Australia is fairly far away and much smaller than China. Japan has shown the best signs of leading a balancing coalition, but Japan is considerably smaller than China and even its military buildup is actually quite small. While China is going on a massive military buildup, the countries of East and Southeast Asia are not growing their military spending as a percentage of GDP.
If the U.S. left the region, the most likely outcome would be a Southeast Asia gradually more and more controlled by China. Taiwan would either be subsumed by China or quickly develop a nuclear arsenal. South Korea would develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to North Korea just as much as to deter China, and Japan would also go nuclear to ensure itself against nuclear blackmail. China would be more free to punish any country around the globe economically, including the United States, and more free to extend its power out into the world.
There’s a possibility that Japan, India, and Australia would lead a counter balancing coalition that many countries in the region would join. But, China has so much leverage, that this doesn’t seem likely.
Without the U.S., the chances of war increase. China will be emboldened to take military actions. It would increase its demands on Taiwan and likely invade if Taiwan remains defiant. China would want to conquer Taiwan before it developed nukes. Tensions between Japan and China would be very high, and Japan may retaliate aggressively against any slights to make sure China knows Japan will fight hard to defend its interests. This could spark an all-out war between Japan and China. Such a war would be devastating to the world economy and make most Americans poorer.
Despite that China is not a Communist system, it is still led by an ideological Communist Party. Communist Parties believe in brutal authoritarianism for the sake of worldwide people’s revolution. They don’t care about international norms or the sovereign rights of foreign countries. China today is essentially the continuation of the series of Chinese empires that have been around since before Christ. Such empires see other countries as inferior. They expand and conquer unless stopped by internal or external force. They expect submission from their periphery. China’s aggressive actions in international organizations, in the South and East China seas, in sanctioning countries for evil reasons, in forcing Americans to limit their free speech outside of China if they want to do business in China, and its determination to force the free and democratic people of Taiwan to submit to its authoritarian rule…in these actions China has showed it is not truly a peaceful nation who just wants free trade and harmony. Harmony to a Chinese empire means obeying the Chinese emperor. The U.S. is not safe from a country whose population is quadruple that of the United States, whose economy is by some measures larger than that of the U.S., who is modernizing and growing its military at a rapid pace, and who is massively creating advanced nuclear weapons. Would the United States rather try to convince countries to keep trading with it, and convince China to not bully it, while China controls the most important economic region in the world, by having Hawaii and the U.S. mainland armed to the teeth and prepared for a war off its coasts…, or would it be better to support allies and partners with common interests by standing strong with them in Asia, and maintaining a balance of power in Asia using U.S. strength combined with countries who do not want their region dominated by China?
The most likely outcome of the U.S. leaving East Asia is Chinese domination that will have negative ripple effects across the globe. The second most likely outcome is a huge war between China and Japan that will have negative ripple effects across the globe. The third most likely, but quite unlikely, is the countries of Southeast and East Asia massively ramping up their militaries and cooperation to successfully balance China without a major war. If the U.S. wants to avoid Chinese domination or seeing a major war in the region, it needs to fully engage diplomatically, economically, and militarily to convince China that aggression is not the best action and so we can continue to negotiate a world where China and the U.S. live together, and with their neighbors, in peace and prosperity.