Why should the US try to lead solar panel technology ? China has many talented engineers and plenty of venture capital. I'd prefer them to invest it in solar panel manufacturing and power electronics rather than social media, ai or Telco technology.
Something like Star Trek no involvement rule.
I'm really really sorry that our Navy is used to protect trade. Terrible of the U.S.
I'm sorry that the U.S. likes to have allies with democracies and a thriving, consuming, middle-class.
Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely.
Anxiously lashing out at people because they express a desire for improvements in their society, and improvements in American society isn't productive.
"Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely."
Yeah! Criticize America so it can be better but taking a stance that world would magically be better off without America, or even that the world doesn't want America while obsessively consuming American products seems rather childish in my opinion.
You think the grandparent comment is what you describe here?
Ironically, GGP's comment was a well thought out comment supporting American 'hegemony'.
I think you have your "lash out" backwards in this case.
Latin America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-cru...
US: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
Every government has to think about energy independence, of which oil production is part of that story. Our oil economics are also intertwined with US policy, which renewables are helping undo in the US. That's to say, US society is trying to put a cap on how energy independence involves in conflict either directly or indirectly.
Latin Americas story is different: https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/work...
> Abstract: In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, oil-producing countries have civil wars at a significantly higher rate than countries without oil. Is there also a link between oil and armed rebellion in Latin America?
> I argue the answer is “yes,” but with an important qualification. In the rest of the world, oil heightens the danger of both “governmental” conflicts (over control of the existing state) and secessionist conflicts (to form new states); but in Latin America, oil is only linked to governmental conflicts. This is not because Latin American petroleum has unusual properties, but because the region is uniquely “secession-proof”: there have been no separatist conflicts in Latin America for over a century. I explore two possible explanations for this anomaly: the region’s long history of sovereign statehood, which may have caused national borders to become more widely-accepted; and obstacles to the mobilization of indigenous groups along ethnic lines.
Tldr; instead of getting involved in foreign wars to save your oil supply, it's cheaper to centralize the oppression back home.
Realistically, the next country on the US hitlist is probably Iran, not your latam home country. But first the American public needs to get back it's war appetite, and the shooting in Ukraine needs to simmer down (probably within a year, along new borders that are pretty close to what the current battle lines are), and China needs to not distract us by starting with Taiwan.
If your nation is run by a dictatorship, it's a failed state.
If your nation is a theocracy, it's a failed state.
You'll notice the distinct lack of the US invading well-functioning, democratic nations (we share a remarkably unguarded, massive border with Canada).
You generally can't challenge US hegemony, it's far too large, and still expanding. China is the only entity since the 1950s Soviet Union that could even attempt it. For example while the EU's strongest economies have been largely going sideways for ~15 years economically (since the great recession), the US has added nearly $10 trillion to its economy (a further ~65-70% expansion in 15 years). Who is going to keep up with that, at that size (other than China)?
Still relying on boundless global trade in 2023 is just.. a funny position.
The issue is State subsidies and Environmental and Labor regulation that is flimsy. Any American company operating on US soil will be uncompetitive from Day 1 trying to follow, Federal, State and EPA regulation.
As much as Solar Panels are touted in Environmental community, they are a product of intense chemical process that produces poisonous waste.
EDIT: thanks for all the answers, IIUC it boils down to "nobody cares if a luxury item from a western company is built on slavery, the only thing that matters is that poor people who built it cannot afford it"
Ironically, me.
I changed the battery last year, it costed me 13$ (~12 euros), it is as good as new.
Now it might be that my Android phone is Chinese as well, so it actually costed me less than 10¢ a day. Even if I had to replace my Android smartphone, I could have changed it 3 times in the past 7 years and still spend less than buying an iPhone that lasted me 7 years.
I could still easily sell it for 30-40 euros, making it even cheaper.
Side-note: if anyone believes the idea that companies pass savings to the consumer... Well I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn they might be interested in
There must be some limit to how low it can be sold for.
What you’ve described is specific to humanity, not the US — “the thing is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it” is a near universal truth.
Let me guess — you’ve sat at a desk for your entire career?
It is utterly inefficient to produce stuff far, far from where it will be used.
Spreading things out like this is balls.
Lets start building again. If we're to get off this dust-ball, we have to learn to do things ourselves, again.
That's why I'm saying: just, stop!
It has to become consumer-preferred to have something cool be built locally.
This won't happen until someone builds something cool this way.