The trade war has consequences of course. Con meaning with and sequences meaning order and continua of some form. Utilitarianism has a field called consequentialism in which one judges the morality of an action through examination of its consequences. I suppose that includes intention to, or actions with good or bad intentions could have good or bad consequences that are accidental rather than through design, and so the action could be judged moral therefrom without anything besides a corresponding formulaic meaning to determine its moral value.
If the trade war is substantive it may generate good or bad consequences from which evaluation and grading of its utility may be made. President Trump and other leaders have numerous variables to adjust. They may explore those and implement actions suggested from the present and even speculated criteria economically.
Europeans have been critics of the President for some time largely. The trade war paradoxically could be used to address one of the root issues Europeans lambast the President of the United States about- the environment and global warming. One cannot be sure that Europeans have any real intention to modify toward the positive the problem of human caused ecospheric jeopardy. They could try some measures that are adequate to meet the challenge themselves yet they seem to want a partnership or collective global approach to global warming. That approach isn’t adequate and mostly serves to enlist support for ancillary causes such as socialism, homosexual marriage etc.
Europeans could be leaders and just quit using cars. It is possible to use other forms of transportation for the masses and individuals such as hyper-tubes and electric shuttles locally. Fundamentally it is bureaucratic inertia seeking to cultivate a we are the real insiders mentality globally as if that method would not itself lead toward flirtation with democide. President Trump could put a 500% tariff on foreign auto imports in order to encourage Europeans from dumping tools of ecocide upon the world.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-unleash-irreversible-hothouse-earth-scientists-warn-global-warming-climate-change-feedback
A region that abandons antipathetic tools and replaces them with eco-recovery technology would be a global leader. So much needs to be done to upgrade to a new global infrastructure that is not simply an expanded and refined historical economic way of exploiting the ecosphere and converting it into product without reason.
At the top there is little to no leadership to reform capitalism. Instead various forms of competiton and collectivism organizationally prevail, and that forward drive affects most planetary political systems in place today regardless of their political philosophy. A trade war is a kind of blip or disrupt to that standard way of business expansion leading to ecocide. It is not a very substantial blip.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has very little content on the philosophy of corporatism. Here is a quote from what it does have that illuminates part of the problem…
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/notes.html
quote from note #7 "
Adaptation to the niche of political entrepreneurship consists of becoming a better predator in a game where the predators make the rules. Politicians learn to cooperate, to be sure, but mainly with fellow predators. An evolving political order is increasingly dominated by corporatism (more pejoratively known as crony capitalism, where politically favored CEOs acquire the power to regulate their competitors), which is entrepreneurship of a destructive kind. Boettke 1995 articulates the theory of public choice implicit in Hayek."
If the trade war is substantive it may generate good or bad consequences from which evaluation and grading of its utility may be made. President Trump and other leaders have numerous variables to adjust. They may explore those and implement actions suggested from the present and even speculated criteria economically.
Europeans have been critics of the President for some time largely. The trade war paradoxically could be used to address one of the root issues Europeans lambast the President of the United States about- the environment and global warming. One cannot be sure that Europeans have any real intention to modify toward the positive the problem of human caused ecospheric jeopardy. They could try some measures that are adequate to meet the challenge themselves yet they seem to want a partnership or collective global approach to global warming. That approach isn’t adequate and mostly serves to enlist support for ancillary causes such as socialism, homosexual marriage etc.
Europeans could be leaders and just quit using cars. It is possible to use other forms of transportation for the masses and individuals such as hyper-tubes and electric shuttles locally. Fundamentally it is bureaucratic inertia seeking to cultivate a we are the real insiders mentality globally as if that method would not itself lead toward flirtation with democide. President Trump could put a 500% tariff on foreign auto imports in order to encourage Europeans from dumping tools of ecocide upon the world.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-unleash-irreversible-hothouse-earth-scientists-warn-global-warming-climate-change-feedback
A region that abandons antipathetic tools and replaces them with eco-recovery technology would be a global leader. So much needs to be done to upgrade to a new global infrastructure that is not simply an expanded and refined historical economic way of exploiting the ecosphere and converting it into product without reason.
At the top there is little to no leadership to reform capitalism. Instead various forms of competiton and collectivism organizationally prevail, and that forward drive affects most planetary political systems in place today regardless of their political philosophy. A trade war is a kind of blip or disrupt to that standard way of business expansion leading to ecocide. It is not a very substantial blip.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has very little content on the philosophy of corporatism. Here is a quote from what it does have that illuminates part of the problem…
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/notes.html
quote from note #7 "
Adaptation to the niche of political entrepreneurship consists of becoming a better predator in a game where the predators make the rules. Politicians learn to cooperate, to be sure, but mainly with fellow predators. An evolving political order is increasingly dominated by corporatism (more pejoratively known as crony capitalism, where politically favored CEOs acquire the power to regulate their competitors), which is entrepreneurship of a destructive kind. Boettke 1995 articulates the theory of public choice implicit in Hayek."
