But, Delores.. where will you go?

 

Orchid time

We have an orchid-whisperer at home...

“America First doesn’t mean America Alone” | Scott Bessent

Click above for the video

America First doesn’t mean America Alone”.

So says Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, interviewed above at an International Finance Conference. Where he gave a speech, here. “America’s grand plan”.

The World Bank and IMF “have to get back to factory settings”. Back to doing what they were set up to do. There has been too much “Mission Creep”, especially in recent years following a U.S. obsession with all matters “woke”: social justice, DEI, Critical Race Theory, Climate Change zealotry, and so on. 

People who hate on America gonna keep on hating on America, no matter what. They won’t know or won’t remember, or will wilfully ignore: that the post-war global infrastructure — a huge success — was set up by America. 

The Marshall Plan for a Europe, the Breton Woods financial structure, the Japanese Constitution, the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, later the WTO. All these kept world peace (ok, not perfectly…), and massively grew world trade. All arose out of a patrician, a noble, a generous, a humanist impulse in America. One can pick and be picky, but it was and remains a grand vision for the benefit of mankind. One that is not helped by large, aggressive mercantilist late-comers. 

This vast system is in need of  reform. That’s what Scott Bessent is saying. That’s what Trump and his team are aiming to do. Against the very stiff headwinds of the opposition, who oppose literally everything — and I mean “literally” literally — no matter how commonsensical. (They’ve now decided they love ultra-violent Central American gangs, just because Trump wants to deport them…for goodness sake!).

So these are the historic times we live in. Of a president, flawed to be sure, but nonetheless determined as none before him this century, to take on the torrid task of international trade and economic reform. 

These are the Interesting Times we live in. 

The current tariff battle needs time to work (or not). It’s too early to say if it’s a success or failure. But its goals are correct and clear, as Bessent lays out, and there some shoots of optimism. The main battle is with China. And there are glimmers in the tunnel. At least I like to think I see them. As I merrily mix my metaphors. “Thorny shoals ahead”, my mate Ross used to say. Well, says the optimist, we can do it!

By the way, many people, Democrats mainly, criticise “America First” as some kind of horrid, xenophobic, authoritarian right-wing thing. They forget, or don’t know, that it was first used by Democratic president Woodrow Wilson, back around 1916, and that it was picked up and used by Bill  Clinton. Just one more of the many cases of “it’s good for me, but not for thee”.

Enough said... A tale of Two Countries. Of Mercantilism vs the Market

Zhi Hu = Chinese Quora

Baidu = Chinese Google

You Ku = Chinese YouTube

WeChat = Chinese WhatsApp

Alibaba = Chinese Amazon

Ant = Chinese PayPal

WeiBo = Chinese X (Twitter)

Sina WeiBo = Chinese Facebook 

XiaoHongShu = Chinese Instagram

Bai Ke = Chinese Wikipedia 

Douyin = Chinese Blogger

Tik Tok = Chinese Tik Tok  (except in China Tik Tok is not allowed)

=============================

ALL the above in the Left column are Chinese knock-offs of the ones in the Right hand column. 

IOW: Copy cats 🐱

None of the ones in the Right hand column are allowed in China. 

IOW: No American technology is allowed in China. 

All of the ones in the Left hand column are allowed in the United States. 

IOW: All Chinese technology is allowed in America

Including the Chinese-owned App Tik Tok, which is openly propagandising in America about how bad America is. 

This is "fairness", Mercantilist-style. What Trump is after is Reciprocity. 

On a somewhat more elevated and scholarly note, but also on the same issue of mercantilism, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on China, Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the IMF. Here. He's tough. But on an elevated level. 

It is "absurd", says Scott Bessent, for China, the world's second-largest economy, to be treated as a "Developing Economy". It's that label that gave it the excuses to do the stuff above. To shut out technologies to protect its domestic copy-cats, to be export-driven at the expense of countries around the world. He's right on that. China should long ago been taken off the list of Developing Economies. 

And must be now. 

Rusty makes his move

Dear Grok: "Name me some living US politicians you would consider Extreme Left and Extreme Right"

Grok:

I’ll start by clarifying that "extreme" in politics is tricky to pin down—labels like "far-left" or "far-right" often get thrown around loosely, and what’s considered extreme can shift depending on the context or who’s talking. That said, I’ll base this on politicians whose views consistently align with the outer edges of the left-right spectrum, using their public stances, voting records, and policy advocacy as a guide. I’ll keep it to living U.S. politicians actively serving or recently prominent, and I’ll aim for precision without fluff.

Extreme Left

These are politicians whose platforms emphasize anti-capitalist policies, revolutionary socialism, or far-reaching structural changes like dismantling major institutions or nationalizing industries. They often align with democratic socialism or beyond, advocating for policies well to the left of mainstream liberalism.

1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) - U.S. Representative (D-NY)
   • Why: AOC identifies as a democratic socialist and pushes policies like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and wealth taxes targeting billionaires. Her rhetoric often critiques capitalism itself, calling for systemic overhaul, and she’s a prominent voice in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. She’s also supported ideas like abolishing ICE and decriminalizing certain border crossings, which are seen as far-left by many.
   • Caveat: While bold, her policies still operate within the democratic framework, so some might argue she’s not "extreme" enough compared to, say, historical Marxist revolutionaries. Still, she’s among the furthest left in Congress.
2. Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator (I-VT)
   • Why: Sanders, another democratic socialist, has spent decades advocating for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and breaking up big banks. His 2016 and 2020 presidential runs mainstreamed ideas once considered fringe, like nationalizing healthcare and taxing extreme wealth. He’s been vocal about class struggle and has praised aspects of socialist systems abroad, which puts him on the far-left edge of U.S. politics.
   • Caveat: Like AOC, Sanders works within the system, and his policies, while radical for the U.S., are closer to standard social democracy in places like Europe.

Extreme Right

These are politicians who advocate for nationalist, authoritarian-leaning, or highly traditionalist policies, often rejecting compromise with moderates. They might support extreme deregulation, anti-immigrant measures, or policies rooted in religious fundamentalism, aligning with far-right ideologies like nativism or paleo-conservatism.

1. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) - U.S. Representative (R-GA)
   • Why: Greene is a vocal proponent of hardline nationalist and populist views, often aligning with the MAGA movement’s most uncompromising wing. She’s pushed conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon sympathies), opposed immigration broadly, and called for dismantling federal agencies like the Department of Education. Her rhetoric often emphasizes "America First" policies, Christian nationalism, and skepticism of establishment institutions, marking her as a far-right figure.
   • Caveat: Her influence within the GOP has grown, which might suggest her views are less fringe than they seem, but her positions remain divisive even among conservatives.
2. Lauren Boebert - U.S. Representative (R-CO)
   • Why: Boebert shares Greene’s MAGA-aligned, nationalist stance, with a focus on Second Amendment absolutism, anti-abortion extremism, and slashing federal programs. She’s been outspoken against progressive policies like the Green New Deal and has flirted with conspiracies around election integrity. Her rhetoric often appeals to far-right militias and anti-government sentiments, placing her on the spectrum’s edge.
   • Caveat: Like Greene, her visibility in the GOP might make her seem less "extreme" to some, but her policy stances and rhetoric consistently push far-right boundaries.

Notes

• Context Matters: The U.S. political spectrum is narrower than in some countries. What’s "extreme left" here (e.g., democratic socialism) might be mainstream in Europe, and the "extreme right" often avoids the overt fascism seen elsewhere but leans into nativism or populism.
• No Perfect Fits: True extremists (e.g., advocating violent revolution or outright fascism) are rare among elected U.S. politicians due to the system’s checks and public scrutiny. The ones listed are the closest to the edges while still holding significant office.
• Balance: I’ve avoided equating "extreme" with "bad" or picking sides—both ends have coherent arguments and blind spots. The left often focuses on systemic inequality but can overreach on practicality; the right prioritizes tradition or liberty but can veer into exclusionary or conspiratorial territory.

================

Me, (not Grok): If you'd asked me the question, I'd have said exactly AOC and Bernie on the Left. On the Right I'm not sure who I would have said, though MTG and Boebert do fit the label, I agree.