New Blue Origin New Glenn Rocket and a Successful First Commercial Sub-orbital Payload

Blue Origin has successfully launched a first commercial payload. It was a sub-orbital launch with the New Shepard rocket.

The New Shepard system took 8 NASA-sponsored research and technology payloads into sub-orbital space. This flight was dedicated to NASA’s Flight Opportunities program, an essential program for researchers providing access to microgravity for technology development. Blue supports NASA’s Flight Opportunities program and its role in perfecting technology for a future human presence in space.

Blue Origin released new animations of their proposed New Glenn rocket which will use seven BE-4 rockets for the first stage and will have two BE-3 engines for the second stage.

The New Glenn Rocket and the BE-4 engine are getting substantial funding from the US government.

Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

101 thoughts on “New Blue Origin New Glenn Rocket and a Successful First Commercial Sub-orbital Payload”

  1. How do you say “use the toilet” in Hindi? Will Indians be using toilets in 10 years, 20 years, or 100 years? Do not lie about that abominable shithole you live in thinking it has a future, my friend.

    Reply
  2. I don’t get paid in China. ?????

    The Chinese yuan is a managed currency. It floats but only in a narrow floating band. A ‘soft peg’ to the dollar, if you will.

    UNLESS they purposely devalue. But then hard peg currencies can be purposely devalued too. Even Hong Kong did that back in the day.

    Reply
  3. I’m more concerned that you get paid way less for work on average in China than this trade system with arbitrary floating values

    Reply
  4. The ratio of income/wealth to productive value.

    Yes..If New Yorkers are largly just supporting land lords with their labor surplus, then New York too.

    Reply
  5. Patent law affords way too much credit to capitalists and distorts the distribution of wealth realitve to objective creative work.

    Reply
  6. Correct, but that’s more or less the only difference between the three schemes. And Japan did knock-off work for America for close to thirty years before they started contributing.

    Reply
  7. I don’t think Germany or Japan insists we give them our intellectual property for the privilege of setting up shop there.

    Reply
  8. The reason the red states did not get as much money during the Obama years was not due to Obama. It was due to the republican state governments not accepting certain federal funds that were part of signature Obama programs

    Oh yes, blame them for living how they state they would — no handouts!

    That’s like saying the Squeegie Guys are entitled to your money after they cleaned your windshield even though you never asked for them to.

    Reply
  9. Shiggity is our resident Millennial Socialist who, at one point, lived in his parents basement or something. (He might still yet). In the past, he would post all these ‘woah is us Millennials who are entitled to free stuff!’. That was, not coincidentially, was during the Obama years — which were a total human economics rights violation epoch that slammed the young the most. But hey….gotta blame capitalism and Republicans! is what Shig’s MO was constantly.

    Reply
  10. All they do is spend it on paying off debts for consumption that they already did in the past, for the most part. About 80% of it. This is empirically proven historical fact.

    Reply
  11. What does that have to do with anything? If China is playing fair and cleaning our clocks, good for them. We would need to adapt, just fine with that. We have no problems with fair competition. Nothing I have said requires any of our allies to cut trade with China. If they do not consider it worth their effort to not import products created by state owned industries who are flooding the market or stealing IP, nobody would force them to. If we grant them tariff credits from some country (not necessarily China) and they choose not to use them we could give them to someone else.
    My point is that as long as we did not blind side our allies then we are being open and honest. That makes them trust us more and backs up our standing in the world by not taking shady actions. We would punish bad actors without requiring them to do anything but lose market share in our economy. No animosity, no economic coercion, just simply setting the rules for other countries to function within our economy our way. If they do not do so, that would be on them. Simple and done.

    Reply
  12. The big problem is the some of your a allies have a big dependency on trade with China with some of them having a a surplus rather than a deficit, the only way that the US can convince their allies to cut trade with China is if the US is willing to import all of the products that are not going to China, the US have to absorb every economic loss by their allies cutting of trade with China, good luck with that.

    Reply
  13. good point, I’m just glad we finally have a president with the size of gonads necessary to do something about it. If Trump does nothing else, hashing an equitable deal with these commies should earn him a mention in the history books.

    Reply
  14. We don’t necessarily need an international IP treaty to do that any more than they need one to steal our stuff now, but that would make it easier. As long as we are honest and above board then we will not have problems with countries that do follow the rules. We cannot control the behavior of other countries easily, but we can control our own with the swipe of a pen and do cheaters some serious damage.

    Reply
  15. To accomplish that: First, you have to create an international IP treaty, any nation that signs agrees to respect the IP laws of the nation that produces the tech (as long as said laws conform to the treaty standards) and pay any penalties tht are awarded for infringement. Second, any nation not a member of the treaty has no IP rights in the eyes of the treaty. Third, the US needs to start a hackers based branch to attack the industries of any and all of the nations that do not accept the treaty. Steal everything of value and burn their networks to the ground if they don’t comply. Make those nations accept the IP treaty by targeting all their IP and ignoring any complaints with plausible deniability, hell, blame it on the Russians if all else fails.

    Reply
  16. Correction: As long as we work with our allies, we would eliminate China’s export markets and not cause conflict with countries that do follow WTO rules.

    Reply
  17. 3) China is not the only country that tariffs our products. The simple solution is to enable our trade administrators to control adding and removing tariffs and other means to even that out. We could even enable tariffs on some countries and use them as credits for countries that play by the rules, giving their products an advantage in our markets over the cheaters. This would cause that country to lose market share in their export market, creating a huge mess for them with job losses and failed bank loans.

    There are a lot of solutions, but at least these do not require countries to change what they do when they do not want to. Our behavior we can control easily, no muss and no fuss.

    Reply
  18. The solution is simple, and does not require China to change anything (to their regret). We cannot change the behavior of other countries, like IP theft and underwriting industries to achieve global dominance in key industries. We can change what we do.
    1) If China is underwriting industries, work with our allies and either block any sales of those products from our markets or underwrite our own industries. As long as we work without our allies, we would eliminate China’s export markets and not cause conflict with countries that do follow WTO rules.
    2) IP theft can go both ways. With China’s economy maturing, it will be new products and technologies that allow their economy to grow just like ours. If they do not respect other people’s property, then we should just make it known that we will not respect the IP from countries that do not. We will have entire cottage industries devoted to stealing their IP, and then produce them in countries for less than they can be produced in China.

    Reply
  19. Thats not what’s going on. What’s going on is that China (and Germany (and Japan)) have created an economic structure where consumers cannot consume all of what they produce, which jettisons the difference out onto global capital markets, both in the form of goods but more recently, frequently in the form of capital. And that capital tends to end up in the largest, most open capital market on the planet, in this case the American market. That capital really only can cause a couple of outcomes: Reduced production in the US in the form of increased unemployment, or increased consumption in the form of increased debt.

    Reply
  20. Sure, WM is sourcing more from places like Vietnam and Bangladesh. But the majority of the 800k TEU’s coming in on ships is from China. It used to be about 80% Chinese 5 years ago, and around 75% nowadays, though hard to say with re-exports etc. Not exactly sure what WM is importing from Mexico though, I don’t think Mexico does much in that area.

    China still has a very firm grip on consumer goods exports. Making t-shirts somewhere else is one thing. Making the rest of what they do as cheaply is extremely difficult because you need to build massive supply chain scale. This expertise is China’s last trump card.

    Reply
  21. So my guess is they plan to make a big order with Boeing for commercial jets and maybe some of the high-end tech companies for servers and such. Maybe they buy some mining and heavy construction equipment. I could also see them buying GMO crop seeds from something like Monsantos, since they could always use more food. That will probably be the majority of what they buy.

    Reply
  22. The reason the red states did not get as much money during the Obama years was not due to Obama. It was due to the republican state governments not accepting certain federal funds that were part of signature Obama programs. They did not want to make him look good. There were numerous republican controlled state governments that sued over certain laws that would have given them funding or other times where they refused to allow projects that used the funds that were available. Even with all of this, during the Obama years the largest blue states like California and New York, only received about 75-80% back of their federal contributions from taxes, while most small red states got back way more than they put in. One example of this is all the green energy programs under Obama. If you lived in a red state that stuff helped less, since if the state government do not start creating projects to build that stuff, they don’t get the federal money and the construction jobs that come with it. Sp sure they didn’t get the money, but that is because they voted to have a bunch despotic leaders at the state level.

    Reply
  23. I don’t know, the aerospace and defense industry does well enough, aka the military industrial complex. The energy and mining companies based in the US do pretty good, though mosthave extensive overseas holdings. US pharma is still at or near the top across the globe. Then there is the microprocessor and chip industry, where the US is the undisputed king with Intel and AMD. For the really high tech stuff *(I am not talking about smart phones) the US is still at or near the top of most industries with only Japan and the EU offering up anything close.

    Oh, then there is the insurance industry, the biggest scam of all and about 15% of the whole US economy.

    Also, the US also outproduces just about everyone in terms of food and exports more than twice as much food as anyone else. The US is the most food secure nation on earth.

    Reply
  24. I say base the tariff on the wages paid. If the workers are not paid at least 75% of US min wage, an escalating tariff. If the workers are paid over 75%, then little to no tariff.

    Reply
  25. Right you are. 
    Entire.
    ⊕1.

    Doesn’t matter one iota whether you ‘n’ I would get in a fisticuff at a bar or not, what matters is that occasionally we agree. On the important stuff. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  26. No, the people of China are NOT free to buy as much or as little form the US as they want. Stop posting factually incorrect BS.

    Reply
  27. Actually, out main problem is one of trade being an instrument that the Chinese use against us have since Nixon opened up relations with Beijing back in the early 70s.

    In other words, it is Thucydides’ Trap Time: And we need to put the kibbash on China’s rise. Cutting them in the export gonads is the way to do it for sure w/o starting a shooting war. This is our Rheinland March moment and we better not blow it like the French and Brits did in ’36.

    So it doesn’t matter if jobs ‘come back’ to the US or not. What matters is that that they are destroyed in China – by the MILLIONS.

    THAT is what this is really about. And it is overdue.

    Reply
  28. But! But! The Unholy Alliance Wu Maus and Trump Haters here on NBF kept INSISTING that the tariffs don’t work! That the Chinese don’t NEED to trade with us! Ergo: Next Big China is winning the trade war!

    …ALL of that was just proven to be the complete BS that *I* said it was. This concession (which I agree is meaningless as the Chinese won’t deliver as mentioned in the article) is a bald faced admission that the trade war is hurting them a lot more than us…especially the longer it goes on.

    Well Wu Maus and Trump Haters? You gonna admit you were wrong or what?

    Riiiiggght

    Reply
  29. “When dollars don’t cross borders, soldier often do.”

    Actually, the leadup to World War 1 involved huge expansions of foreign trade.

    Reply
  30. New rule: you must be completely bald before you get a billion dollars or more from the government.

    Jeff Bezos approved this message.

    Reply
  31. Is not about just debt is about having control over it, the 2007 subprime crisis was little about debt and more about the nature of the debt. You can have low debt and still have a crisis.

    This central bank expansionists policies like QE and low interest rate had created the biggest asset bubble in history, in 2002-2007 everything was great the economy was growing faster than ever, the job market was the best ever, the stocks higher than ever, deregulation was working and Fed was printing more money than ever, in other words it was “the best house in a bad neighborhood” (look similar?) and then everything goes to shit because was a bubble.

    Something is going to deflate the “everything bubble” whatever is inside in the US or outside the US its doesn’t matter, once that happen US has to reach an agreement with the Chinese AS FAST AS POSSIBLE or what it start as a recession can become a mayor depression.

    Reply
  32. How you spell Potemkin in Mandarin? Or bubble? Ghost City is everywhere falling down, cheap buildings. Slaughter religiousing people and transplant their body organ for profit. Ugly country.

    Reply
  33. Not so much a matter of data located in China being secure, as making sure they can’t use our Chinese plant to vacuum up data stored elsewhere in the company network.

    Reply
  34. More and more of what you buy in Walmart is either being made in Mexico or Pacific Rim nations. Multinationals have been adding their incremental production outside of China for years now due to labor costs and political uncertainty has only accelerated that trend.

    Reply
  35. Bubbles are relative. Think the U.S. real estate bubble is bad? Look at China’s. Or Canada’s. Heck, New Zealand and Australia have bubbles too. Think corporate debt is bad in the U.S? A company in China just defaulted on a local currency loan despite *claiming* to have 15x the value of the loan in cash just the prior quarter. By U.S. standards about 20% of European corporate debt is non-performing. The U.S. has issues, no doubt, but it appears to be the best house in a bad neighborhood.

    Reply
  36. Similar to Russia post WWII. I’d expect a similar polarization, similar escalation, similar tactics, and (hopefully) a similar outcome.

    Reply
  37. To your main point, I do not think it was only greedy profits. The West is of some honor and IMO I will drink the cool aid and believe we had ” ..hope they eventually see the good ways of freedom …” in mind when ‘allowing’ (they have been large before) this path. Historical footnote; Millions were brought out of poverty as a consequence.

    Reply
  38. Your absolutely correct. We don’t have to buy from China and we will choose not to. Its our country and we will do as we please.

    Reply
  39. What is intellectual property? Science and technology knowledge is property to whom? These questions arise because: did anyone or any nation invented anything from thin air

    Reply
  40. Actually they’re down to about $2trillion in reserves FYI. The last time they defended the Yuan they blew threw $1trillion in about six months.

    Reply
  41. You realize they have had tons of tariffs on everyone else and have been ruining markets all over the glob so they can take over specific industries.

    There is no difference between the chinese economy/industry and its military and political ambitions….the Economy is simply a tool to them.

    Reply
  42. Dude you dont get it do you. Let me guess you live in a city probably in a liberal state.

    The People who voted for trump got what Obama never gave them. A break.

    Obama said as much after Hilary lost the election. The Fallout in 07 and afterwards DESTROYED Rural and small town America. All the “Stimulus” that came after did nothing for the places hit. over 90% of all the money went into a few very large very powerful mega cities and rich places.

    Economy in the red states is booming.

    Reply
  43. these days 90% of IP theif is a chinese grad student in the US with a micro-SD card downloading the files at work and going back to china to start the same company with the support of Chinese government venture capital fund… don’t even get me started on cloud networks…its like the IP theif people decide they have already stolen everything on the global corporate intranets… time to fleece the general american public as well the same way… the whole concept is insane and half of everything that was stealable has already been stolen from US companies… that was the dummy American companies putting all their valuable IP files on a global intranet and let people over in india “cleanup” their files for them… so much of that crap has gone on ffor years…. i’m convinced that the US companies actually moved over half of the US hightech economy during the Bush and Obama years by directly giving people in asia the network keys to steal whatever they wanted from the comfort of their office over in india and china and else where

    Reply
  44. let’s face it, the only companies that really do well these days are companies that are sales men for the chinese economy… walmarts…amazon…etc…

    Reply
  45. the best stimulus is for companies to actually make money rather than slowly go out of business because the chinese economy undercuts them…

    Reply
  46. Paying us back for trillion dollars we gave the world bank to give to china. What the hell, will we do with a
    trillion???
    Can we equal their ingenuity in out Americaning the Americans in their engineering designs. They are ahead of us in photonics on stealth jets,. They exceed us in tokomak fusion reactors now. MIT and a british company have fusion reactors designs on the drawing board but the chinese achieved seven times the temrature of the center of the sun 100 million degrees for a minute and a half. They exceeed us in that. we’ll see ignition in the coming months or next few years.

    Reply
  47. actually, the best way is if the chinese put tariffs on their own products to the US…then they can pick and choose what they want to be experts in without ruining other segments of other country economies…. like maybe the chinese want to give up on exporting high resource products…and export tv sets instead….(i mean that would be the smarter thing to do… no point being part of burning down forests and removing mountains.etc..) then everybody’s happy… the US gave up on TV sets anyways… they should just target japanese/korean products for export and retrict others lower value products… in my opinion and use that to solve trade imbalance with the US…. that way China still gets the Prestige of exporting a high value product like a developed country without being a pest to those countries,,,, they should stay away from cars, airplanes, and large kitchen appliances.. the US still has too much pride for those objects… intenational trade should really be a truce, the US concedes this part of world export economy, and Chinese concedes this part of the economy, and then they don’t clobber each other… thats the wise thing to do… then US has safe jobs in those industry…and chinese has safe jobs in their choosen export industries,,,and they stop trying to steal each other’s prize industry…

    Reply
  48. well…that’s about time… But, I’ll believe it when i see it….

    In my opinion, there’s almost nothing left in the US for the chinese economy to steal anyways… they have already taken everything that wasn’t already bolted down….

    these days the chinese ecomomy is a pest to the US economy out of spite for the United States.. like they can’t let them have their jobs back, they might relearn how to do them… the need to keep things so uneven and slained that nobody else in the world can complete by making them all bleed money to death… even working the smart way… they go out of buisness… then the same machines end up in china… working against the economy instead…

    Reply
  49. Ok, increase tariffs from China to, say, 500%. Now try and go to Walmart and buy anything. Maybe that is the price we should be willing to pay. Reverse it and eliminate all import tariffs in China from the U.S. What would you sell them?

    Reply
  50. I hear ya. Who wrote the network code and is any data going through IC’s produced other otherwise assembled in China? It is extremely difficult (I would say impossible) for ANY data located in China to be secure. It’s part and parcel of dong business there, imho. And it’s not limited to mainland access (APT10…..). There are ways to mitigate, and it’s old school, but I won’t get into that here on this site.

    Reply
  51. I dont know if this is true or not, but the U.S. has a massive bubble in their economy once this bubble start deflate a recession will come, if the trade issues are not solve by then and escalate what start like a recession will become a depression in no time.

    Reply
  52. We have a plant in China; I’d estimate 90% of our network security is dedicated to making sure they don’t vacuum up all our IP through that plant’s access to our network.

    Reply
  53. The multi-trillion dollar stimulus he was talking about was the TARP. And, yeah, lot of talk about “shovel ready programs”, then they spent it making sure people who were massively invested in the financial sector didn’t take a hair cut.

    Reply
  54. Yeah, pretty much. China is a strategic adversary of the US, they know it, and they figure they have to take us down to rise themselves.

    If they offer an apple to make up, it’s poisoned, count on it.

    Reply
  55. Re the IP issue. Large multinationals based in China are not serious with China stealing their IP or copying it. They only want to make money and losing control over IP is the cost of doing business. The problem, of course is when China takes the IP and makes their own version and sells it back to the MNC country. BASF (in China), for instance, invented a new way to remove formaldehyde from house paints when you paint. Chinese stole this and put the invention in their own paints and then sold it back into Germany (under a European sounding name). The BASF’s of the world have figured they can chase these type of schemes, but not control what happens inside China – that is the cost of doing business. They are finding out now, of course, that as China more and more goes international, especially in emerging economies, this short term profit concept no longer holds up. BASF can’t chase down paint dealers in 100 countries. It’s their own fault.

    For companies not operating in China (e.g., Lockheed), IP theft is real and dangerous.

    It’s not about protecting IP legally in China. The trick now is to go after every single Chinese company operating outside of China. Basically all of them operate with some “western” IP content (BAIC is making Daimler and Hyundai clones in west Africa). And shut them down. Forcibly if needed.

    Reply
  56. Folks, think big picture here and negotiating tactics.
    1 – China’s “offer” showed how bad their leverage is. It isn’t about China buying more stuff, it is about the US buying less of theirs. The offer makes no practical sense, it isn’t like Iowa can find additional soybean land to farm. China will never buy stuff that they make themselves – then they will have riots at home.

    2 – China is rapidly changing it’s economy. It is now fighting 3 wars. One, the domestic demand has flattened off. People who can afford cars, washing machines, phones etc have bought them. There is not enough of “new money” coming in that can sustain additional big increases in demand. Two, they have shifted a massive amount of FX reserves into other countries to support the One Belt strategy. In other words, they have gone “off balance sheet”. Once you build a major port in the Arabian Gulf, you can’t exactly bring it home. You can try and sell it, but the discount is very high. Three – companies are generally buying less from China (e.g., phones – Foxconn just fired about 300,000 employees in China), and you see this in the balance of payments which is very close to zero right now and might go negative.

    It’s not doom and gloom, China still have $3 trillion in reserves (even though 500-600bn or so of this is tied up). But it’s a very weak bargaining position, especially against the U.S. The US holds all the cards and has time on it’s side.

    Reply
  57. Wow! The .hinese are givingbthe usa back the trillion dollars it was loaned by thevworld bank. The lions share was from america and they paifid us bscl with intetest 19 yeRs later.

    Reply
  58. i think chinese communist technocracy is a great balance to the wests private banking system. Each government is an experiment in economic growth via various structures. As long as we have relative global stability i dont see the problem with them trying things that we will not. Their intellectual property rights allow for fast development and nimble manufacturing capabiity. Rising debt and lack of domestic enrgy sources will choke them and russia. We need cheap modular nuclear.

    Reply
  59. It’s their country and they should do whatever is in their own best long term interest.

    No one is forcing the people of the US to buy $500B a year from china, the people of China are free to buy as much or as little from the US as the want.

    Reply
  60. The west has always wanted access to China’s markets and in doing so there is always a risk. If losing intellectual property is result of that risk then there is no use crying now.

    Honestly, what did you expect? …… China be given the job of manufacture and ignore the scope of what they are producing? ……. China ‘honour’ patents that see them as
    merely a convenient manufacturing hub of tech? ………

    The west entered a Communist based country who were decades behind in development and what ‘honour’ did they owe America?

    THE PROBLEM is the mindset of the countries/ignoramus who try to exploit developing countries to make the ALWAYS GREEDY PROFITS then cry foul in the name of ‘THEFT

    Reply
  61. The trade rules with China need to be rewritten. We buy $500B from them each year. They buy only $125B from us. Thus the trade is lopsided by a factor of 4 to 1!!!!! Unsustainable.

    Reply
  62. Regarding intellectual property, the main problem is that China requires that you give them rights to use all your intellectual property including teaching their engineers all the tricks of the trade in exchange for the privilege for setting up a factory there and thus have a chance at competing with everyone else who has moved their factories there. Regardless of the merits of patents, this is yet another major unfair advantage that we have somehow conceded to. Only recently have they been waving this as the advantages of moving factories there have become less of a bargaining chip.

    The trade rules with China need to be rewritten. We buy $500B from them each year. They buy only $125B from us. Thus the trade is lopsided by a factor of 4 to 1!!!!! Unsustainable.

    Reply
  63. China’s trade with the world is in balance and it has kept all its WTO undertakings. America was running massive trade deficits long before China was admitted to the WTO.

    America’s deficit has NOTHING to do with China. As a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Harvard professor Martin Feldstein, has written, “every student of economics knows or should know that the current account balance of each country is determined within its own borders and not by its trading partners.” Basic accounting principles tell us that the United States’ overall trade deficit is the result of a shortage in national savings relative to spending due to excessive government budget deficits and households consuming beyond their means. The countries that show up as being the source of the offsetting trade surpluses are coincidental. [End the currency manipulation debate – Financial Times.
    https://www.ft.com/content/527f9d0a-b97b-3cd1-9fd6-2c6e75f3824f

    Reply
  64. Perhaps this may just be stalling, but I hope it means China really does not want this to go the way of this cycle of history, so we all get another world war. “When dollars don’t cross borders, soldier often do.” They understand “saving face” for their side and the USA’s side. In the long run, this would be some benefit to the US, but an even greater benefit to China – as their economy may be heading for problems and their influence is expanding in Africa and elsewhere. Perhaps (again, I’m hoping) some of what they want to buy includes the intellectual property rights to technology, entertainment, and so on. Thus, the west gets a “brave new world” while China gets 1984 as Rob Asghar said in Forbes.

    Reply
  65. Stop being irrational, no one can own ideas. It’s just a vile concept dreamed up by the depraved to justify the demand to others to pay a vig for the one thing that is truly free.

    Reply
  66. This is an awsome idea … make the check out to Donald J. Trump. I am sure we can trust him to deposit it in the Treasury … minus some fees, of course.

    Reply
  67. Yea yea yea, more spewing of hate and encouragements of adversarial positions from some dumba$$ redneck who’s never been to anywhere outside of the nearest corn field.

    Just saying.

    Reply
  68. With trade deficits of $375 Billion (2017) a $Trillion will cover less than three years. And this does not cover the intellectual property issues just the goods traded. A change in the trade fundamentals is needed.

    Reply
  69. A stimulus works when it goes to people who spend the money, the bottom 80%-90%. The last multi trillion dollar stimulus went exclusively to the 1% and above and then instantly shipped it off to offshore tax free havens.

    Trickle down working great so far, keep it going!

    Reply
  70. There should be high tariffs (15 to 100%) on imports into the US from China and all other nations in the world that are not– free and democratic.

    Low tariffs (1% to 10%) should be reserved for imports from nations that are free and democratic and who respect human rights.

    Such a policy would help nations that are partially free from slipping into darkness, while greatly helping the economies of small countries that are free or partially free.

    No finger wagging or lecturing about human rights is necessary!

    So there should be high UA tariffs on countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Cuba etc. because they are– not free.

    Reply
  71. As Brian notes… THE PROBLEM is way more complex than just China kicking up the “foreign product consumption” market. Our main beef (ahem) isn’t really about that (tho’ it is on some level), but rather the theft of intellectual property, the rampant making of counterfeit (and awful quality) knock-offs, the State of China actively underwriting whole industries in order to monopolize them internationally, and of course, their continued, unabated tariffing and surcharging of all sorts of US exports. Unabashedly.  

    Adding a trillion in trade doesn’t do hardly a thing at fixing the underlying problem. 

    Its like an alligator, gnawing at your leg, calling some other alligators over, bearing bags of bandaids on their backs. The bandaids look mighty good right around now. However… the alligator has NO intention of letting go of your leg.  

    Tis better to shoot the alligator that has your leg than make nice to the squad of other alligators bearing bags of bandaids. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply

Leave a Comment