#those around him and it like. renders everyone else a villain or a caricature or a prop | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

deans-haunted-baby · 3 years

Note

Curious. What do you mean by Dust till Dawn going against it's Characters? I know I have my own feelings, or confusion, with how they left Kate's story.

From Dusk Till Dawn effectively character assassinated every single character in the very last episode including Kate Fuller. No one is acting like themselves in that series finale it's like some deranged fanfic writer came aboard and hijacked the show while no one was looking. If you thought 15x18 & 15x19 of Supernatural were bad and believe me they really are; those episodes are minorly salvageable against the slaughterhouse that Dusk 3x10 was. It utterly contradicts and ignores everything the show put forward in all 3 seasons. I will never watch that episode again.

I'll first explain what that piece of shit did to the show's lead protagonists, the Gecko brothers. Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about Supernatural's series finale; that show was a saint to Sam and Dean's storyline beginning to end compared to how From Dusk Till Dawn definitively butchered Richie and Seth. I'm sad saying this because Zane Holtz and DJ Controna are outstanding as these characters. I freaking love their chemistry man, it's a great rival to J2! They're the badass dark clones of the Winchesters. Their arc starts out fascinatingly complex because they went from cold-blooded criminals/bad guys and meanwhile during their escape over the Mexican border with this hostage family the audience is told pretty quick by Professor Aiden Tanner that the Geckos are destined to become these foresworn warriors The Mayan Hero Twins in an ancient prophecy (based on real Mesoamerican lore) who battle the Underworld. So right away the show is telling us ahead where Seth and Richie are suppose to end up in their journey and when you introduce a storyline this big I expect a satisfying payoff.

At the end of season 1, Richie Gecko is *SPOILER ALERT* transformed into a culebra (snake-vampire) while Seth Gecko remains human symbolizing their night and day Hero Twin counterparts from the legend. And they're separated in the first half of season 2 where both try to navigate this new supernatural world they've stumbled on individually. What they find, no different than the Winchesters, is that neither can function properly without the other making their destiny all the more valid. That season is practically constructed like their swan song to the criminal lifestyle since the brothers are meant to become more than crooks; and since Richie's a vampire they can't ever go back to basics. Their adopted father aka uncle Eddie actually says the line "this is my swan song" in 2x07 to Seth and Richie in reference to their final heist together which is not a coincidence. That's the writers telling us that the Gecko Brothers' role in the show is going to shift from anti-heroes to heroes very soon. Eddie and Kate Fuller's fates in S2 act as the primary catalysts for this transition taking shape in the finale.

Going into season 3 it's business as usual for the boys until the prophecy of the twins officially rips a hole in the damn universe via demon queen Amaru. Who's now possessing Kate. Throughout that season Seth and Richie embark on a journey of heroism; find themselves battling monsters, actually saving civilians and dealing with their own personal demons (guilt and remorse over past sins). That year is presented as their redemption arc and final phase into their new role. No one ever tells them about their destiny (despite most of the other characters knowing) but we as the audience are already aware as we watch the brothers in action. The best episode is without a doubt 3x06 the crown jewel of From Dusk Till Dawn because it's about overcoming the darkness inside. And who best represents that than Richie; the show's most important central character whom began the series as a deadly clairvoyant criminal into the tortured vampire hero struggling with his own humanity. Now I won't spoil the whole episode for anyone who hasn't seen it or the show in general but it's an incredible moment of character development for both the Gecko brothers. Not only does it cement their powerful bond it's the episode that defines who these two are once and for all. The ones who lead the battle between good and evil; keep the balance of light and darkness. One day I plan to do an entire analysis of that episode because it's so fucking brilliant and shot so incredibly eerie at the same time 😁

You want to know what 3x10 does to these characters? It shits all over their entire storyline and pisses away THREE FUCKING SEASONS of character development. Just flushes it all down the toilet rendering everything they've ever done up to that point completely pointless! Their destiny which is the WHOLE POINT OF THE SHOW is suddenly dropped last minute and the Geckos hit reset on their former criminal escapades; dragging Kate along with them. I hate that finale with the fire of a thousand suns for what it does to Richie and Seth 😡

Moving on to Carlos Madrigal. He is the best villain character in the history of show villains hands down. I can actually say that without blinking. Wilmer Valderama is phenomenal, he steals the show as Carlos. He's is so freaking awesome, evil and badass! I just want to keep seeing this man tear things apart while being the sexy asshole he is 😈For all intents and purposes I don't want to spoil his whole storyline on the show for those following me in case they're interested. But what I will say is 3x10 destroys this character; so don't watch it if you want to keep the memory of who he was alive. I'm actually depressed over what was done to him as much as I feel sorry for Wilmer having to perform that shitty script. It's laughable in a very bad way. Gotta hand it to the writers and showrunners of FDTD they certainly knew how to humiliate their best characters in this series. Carlos basically goes from charismatic yet lethal Hannibal Lecter to a very captain obvious Gandolf caricature. Yah you heard that right, it's really fucking sad.

Next we have Freddie Gonzalez; the audience's avatar into the series. This character is connected to everyone on the show for a reason because of the crucial part he plays in this universe. The "Peacekeeper" destined to police the line between the supernatural world from the human world. In the beginning he's a Texas deputy on a quest to avenge the murder of his father figure/partner Earl McGraw via the Gecko Brothers. But once he steps in that territory of monsters there's no going back. And FDTD repeatedly tells him and the audience this in the first 2 seasons. But then 3x10 pulls the ultimate fuckery by giving him the most cliched, nonsensical hallmark ending effectively cancelling out his entire purpose in the series. He instantly forgets that he ever cared about Kate, watching her bleed out on the ground, then leaves the Geckos high and dry rushing his family (who isn't injured) to the hospital. And he stays there while the battle continues 😣

Kate and Scott Fuller OMG words cannot describe my anger over what was done to them so I'll make it fast. I'll begin with Kate the bright light and heart of the series. Her arc in the first two seasons is excellent. It's emotionally driven because she begins as an ordinary girl in broken yet seemingly-happy family to a young woman finding her way around the supernatural world maintaining her faith and moral compos while trying to help her brother after he's *SPOILER ALERT* been turned into a vampire; paralleling the Geckos's situation. Scott being only a 16 year old kid, like Richie, struggles immensely after his transformation; searching for meaning as a cursed individual and coping with his duality. He was already different to begin with so being a vampire adds some interesting layers to his character.

Btw Kate plays a vital role in Richie and Seth's lives, though in my opinion is more strongly connected to Richie. The show even goes as far as developing the early glimpses of a romantic arc between Kate and Richie (seeing as they kiss twice) with angst at the end of season 2 that is never resolved. You want to know why it wasn't? Not only does season 3 mute Kate's voice and agency but 3x10 ruins her character and demolishes her whole arc with Richie (who spent all of season 3 trying to save her) at the last second due to fan pressure of those who shipped her with Seth. They don't exchange one word nor barely look at one another it's like seasons 1&2 never happened. This is the biggest fuck you to fans of these characters I've ever witnessed in a series and they did my boys Adam and Michael so dirty in Supernatural. Poor Scott whom the show enjoyed kicking around all season barely gets a thing to do in that series finale either than listening to his sister and Seth gab about prom lol. Yah you heard me I'm not making this shit up I swear. Then he gets abandoned by Kate while she goes off to be a bank robber with the character assassinated versions of Seth and Richie. How extraordinary 😖

Santanico Pandemonium is really the only character in the series who manages to get out unscathed. HOWEVER her arc is handled very poorly beginning to end. They set up an arc between her and Seth that also goes absolutely nowhere. Give her zero closure with Richie whom she sired, dated and used in S2. And randomly throw her in a scene with Kate that makes no fucking sense after these two had nothing to do with one another all series. On top of that Santanico is barely in season 3 so by the time the show wraps her arc feels incomplete.

Other characters go missing that no one notices, the new bad guy whom they've set up at the end is just left hanging. And Richie Gecko, you know the show’s other lead, is horribly sidelined after 3x06 to make way for the Seth Gecko solo show. When I say FDTD series finale is bad I mean it's really fucking terrible and blasphemous.

#from dusk till dawn: the series #from dusk till dawn #richie gecko #seth gecko #kate fuller #carlos madrigal #fdtd #scott fuller #kichie #richiekate #seth x richie #freddie gonzalez #Santanico Pandemonium #anti fdtd 3x10 #the Gecko brothers

52 notes · View notes

tyrantisterror · 6 years

Text

Well Made Futility: Infinity War Thoughts

I saw Infinity War for a second time and have some thoughts. SPOILERish thoughts, so, y’know, a cut here for the sake of those who care about such things.

I mean, I actually think this movie is better if you know what you’re in for going in, but I’m weird so what do I know.

So like... Infinity War is fucking difficult to evaluate. It’s a movie that does something completely unprecedented in film - while we all enjoyed joking about it, no single movie crossover has attempted to weave this many VERY different stories, characters, and (especially) tones into one coherent narrative before. It is a crossover unlike any other in film. And it’s mostly successful!

but

I know we all like to dunk on Marvel’s films because they’re popular and make a lot of money, and all of us have an inner hipster who hates things that are successful regardless of their actual quality or content, because fuck that man we’re not normies we only like things BEFORE they’re cool. But as a person who loves “genre” fiction - i.e. Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror, anything that isn’t set in standard reality - the Marvel movies have been kind of revolutionary. Genre films had gotten so LIMITED before Iron Man, and it was stupidly limited at that. We could accept that a billionaire fury who punches criminals could walk into a police department without making everyone burst into laughter, but we couldn’t accept that a strange chemical bath would permanently bleach a clown-turned-criminal’s skin. We could accept a guy getting powers from a spider OR a guy being really good at science but not both. We could accept a guy growing claws out of his hands, but god help you if that man also wears something other than black skintight leather. Everything had to be “grounded” and “real”, and I put quotations marks around those words because what they REALLY meant in the context of Hollywood was “boring.”

but

And then Marvel slowly chipped away at that. Not at first - Iron Man and The Hulk were about as restrained as the superhero movies that preceded them, but slowly the movies conditioned us to accept weird shit. Thor brought in Norse mythology and a certain kind of magic, although they dressed it up as “advanced science”, because we were in a transition and that was a concession they could make. Captain America took us out of modern day - a risky idea, period piece action movies are never a sure thing - and also introduced the idea of a serum that can turn you into either the ULTIMATE BEEFCAKE or a red skinned skeleton man depending on your moral compass, which is PRETTY FUCKING WEIRD when you think about it.

but

Then The Avengers happened. Before that movie came out, every conventional Hollywood line of thinking told us it would fail. Movies with multiple heroes don’t succeed. That’s why Batman and Robin sucked, right - too many heroes? And Batman and Robin, why, that’s the worst film ever! Spiderman 3 had too many villains! You can’t have more than two super powered guys in a movie - that’s just movie law! Having more than two super power guys is box office poison.

but

But The Avengers wasn’t. Maybe most of you don’t remember it because we’ve had 10 years of these Marvel movies and their success seems like an inescapable fact now, but The Avengers defied expectations by being both good AND a box office success - a ridiculously lucrative one at that! The Avengers took a huge fucking risk and it paid off.

but

Then it happened again. People assumed The Avengers was as weird as you could go. Critics were CERTAIN these movies would peter out eventually, that they couldn’t keep doing the impossible. One of these risks had to doom them. And a lot of critics looked at one movie on the post The Avengers slate - Guardians of the Galaxy - and said, “That’s the one - that’s gonna be the turd. A movie about a talking raccoon and a tree monster - two RIDICULOUS character concepts that sound more like jokes than something a studio would actually put in their action movie - along with some d-listers no one but hardcore nerds care about, all directed by a guy best known for gore-filled low budget b movies? That’s going to kill Marvel. There is no way that film can be good, much less a financial success.”

but

Guardians of the Galaxy was not just good, but it’s the best series within the franchise. Yeah, fuckin’ fight me on it nerds. (no actually don’t I’m voicing a subjective opinion in this paragraph I don’t actually give a shit about ranking movies like this)

but

Even when their movies weren’t game changers, they were still solid and fun. Whether or not they’re your cup of tea, Marvel’s superhero movies are never worse than “good.” Some of them are “great.” Some, like The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Black Panther, are arguably transformatively great. At the very least, these films taken as a collective whole have changed the way we approach Genre Films. They have redefined what is possible - they reminded Hollywood that suspension of disbelief is a malleable thing, even if some studios haven’t quite grasped the concept yet.

but

Which brings me back to Infinity War. Like The Avengers before it, Infinity War brings different characters from many different stories with many different tones and styles and, to an extent, genres/subgenres, and blends them into a coherent and emotionally resonate whole. It requires you to have seen at least the majority of the previous DECADES worth of movies to work, but that’s not a flaw - no more than, say, the twentieth chapter of a novel requiring you to read the previous 19 at any rate. Infinity War needs those previous films to function, and to its credit, it not only uses what they built, but does so in genuinely surprising ways. You didn’t think you needed a Rocket Raccoon/Thor team up in your life, but this movie proves you did. You also didn’t think you’d see Rocket Raccoon genuinely reach out to Thor (who, to him, is a relative stranger) and try to help him through his grief, but it happens, and it’s a legitimately interesting moment that movies both characters forward in their respective arcs. This movie is more than just taking a bunch of toys out of a toybox and smashing them together (though yes, there are parts of it that are very much that - these are action adventure movies, after all). Characters develop and bounce off each other in glorious and meaningful ways. There is a weight to everything beyond the obvious, mercenary Hollywood mandate to make as much money as possible by getting fans of all these different franchises into one theater.

but

The movie even tries to rectifies some of the franchise’s most notable flaws, in particular their lack of decent villains. You could count the number of actually compelling and interesting villains from the previous 18 films on one hand. Thanos, the big bad of this film, finally gets us to the other palm. His motives are understandable but NOT justified - that is to say, you can understand why a person may believe what he believes, but at the end of the film you know for a fact he’s wrong. Thanos is a bad guy whose evil plan will destroy countless lives, but he manages not to be the cartoonish caricature of a villain whose over the top “destroy the world” motivation makes no sense. It’s nuanced, is my point. I don’t think he’s the best Marvel has offered us - he wouldn’t crack my top three just yet - but he’s miles above most of the competition.

BUT

So here’s the crux of my review. When I got to the ending of the movie - an ending that, admittedly, I spoiled for myself ahead of time, because I do that for most movies ever since I got majorly burned by Jurassic Park III when I was a teen - I couldn’t stop thinking about it, because it’s... it’s a paradox. Not just the ending, either, but the whole movie. This is a film that both does and doesn’t work. It is both an amazing feat and... and fundamentally broken.

And it all has to do with those 18 films before it.

Ok, so: if taken as its own story, that is to say, as just it’s own thing, not the part of a greater whole... then the ending of Infinity War is exactly the ending this story needed. This is Thanos’s story more than anyone else’s, when you get right down to it, and from the perspective that this movie is meant to tell his story and his story alone, the ending is the only one that would fit. Thanos gets everything he wants, at the cost of everything that mattered to him. His crazed vision finally comes true, and the audience feels the full weight of how horrible that is. That ending - that maddening, confounding ending, where almost every hero we’ve come to love over 18 goddamn films is killed with the snap of his fingers - shows us exactly why we can’t let monsters like Thanos come to power, and how even the monsters like Thanos himself are destroyed by following those mad dreams through (a point reinforced by the cameo of a long forgotten past villain, Red Skull).

However, as I said before, you really CAN’T take this movie on its own. Structurally it DEPENDS on you seeing those previous films. You have to have seen them just for this movie to make sense, and to be emotionally affected by it you must also have cared about those movies and their characters. This movie is a sum of those parts.

And as a followup to those 18 films - as a part of their greater whole - it fails. So many characters we followed and love - Black Panther, Spider-Man, every fucking guardian of the galaxy except Rocket and maybe Nebula if we count her, just to name a few - is killed off in a literal instant. With the exception of Loki, each of these deaths kind of renders their preceding journey pointless. Peter Parker was just starting his journey in his preceding film - so was Black Panther, so was Dr. Strange, so were many of the others. Imagine if Hamlet was killed in act 1 of his play - everything about him would be unresolved, and all of his supporting cast would have no anchor to the plot since the conflict they’re involved in is removed with Hamlet’s death. You’d have to start over. Other characters are farther along, but with rare exception, none of them had what could be called a satisfactory end. If the deaths in this movie actually hold true, then most of the preceding 18 movies have been broken. They are wastes of time.

Of course, a savvy person would note that literally every character killed in this movie has been cast in the next Avengers film, due out next year. Spider-Man and the Guardians have announced movies with release dates after that one, too. Black Panther’s sequel has been announced although the release date has not. These deaths are highly unlikely to stick.

BUT if that’s the case, well... then this movie’s broken again, because now that ending has no weight. Now that ending is pointless - in fact, this whole movie is, because it’s all just going to be undone by the next. Either this film was a narrative waste of time, or the preceding 18 were. There’s no other option.

...but...

There is, I suppose, a possibility. A faint one, admittedly - I have no idea if they can achieve it. There’s a possibility the fourth Avengers film could find a way to make this movie’s weight hold while still putting all those dead characters’ stories back on track. Infinity War was conceived as a two part film story, after all, even if they dropped the “Part 1″ label come release. No matter how much this film wants you to think otherwise, it is just part of whole - and maybe, just maybe, the second one will make the first work WITHIN that whole.

I don’t see how it can, but then, I didn’t see how they could make me care about fuckin’ Rocket Raccoon. And Guardians of the Galaxy is, as I said, the best one.

If I were a betting man, I’d bet on this movie ultimately being a narrative cul de sac - a very well made, but ultimately pointless entry that is invalidated by what comes after it. If that ends up being the case, then that’s kind of sad - but there’s a chance they may make it work after all, and if I’ve learned anything, it’s not to bet against Marvel.

19 notes · View notes

thedoctorreviews · 7 years

Text

In “Rose”, a great Doctor, a good companion, and terrible everything else

Pilots are rough. They’re written before any actors are cast, without the aid of a writer’s room. They have to introduce all of the major characters and set up the major conflicts of the season while also telling a compelling story in the space of forty-five minutes. There are some great pilots- The Sopranos, Mad Men, and The West Wing managed this quite well- but, for the most part, the quality of a pilot isn’t reflective of the quality of a show.

Which is good for Doctor Who, because “Rose” is almost entirely garbage.

There are some good parts. They’re few and far between, and often last only a few seconds, but they’re there. Billie Piper is the first in a long line of companions with generic, Ordinary Girl Next Door personalities who are elevated solely by the quality of their actress’s performance (Freema Ageyman, Karen Gillan, and season 7 Jenna Coleman also fall into this category). The moments where she and the Doctor get to interact without spewing exposition are the highlights of the episode; the moment when the Doctor arrives at her doorstep (catflap, technically) unannounced is great, and leads to my favorite exchange in Rose:

Doctor: What are you doing here?

Rose: I live here.

Doctor: What do you do that for?

Rose: I just do.

Christopher Eccleston makes a fine debut as the Ninth Doctor. He doesn’t get to do anything particularly impressive- there’s a reason he’s the most forgotten Doctor this side of Paul McGann- but he does his job well. His best moments are the quick, blink and you’ll miss it sight gags: his getting attacked by the mannequin hand was genuinely funny, as is his explanation for his Northern accent (“Lots of planets have a north”). He does wonders when the Doctor is allowed to break a little- the way his voice starts to go in his scene with the Nestene consciousness when he tries to defend his involvement with the Time War is utterly heartbreaking.

That’s about all the good in this episode. Now for the bad stuff.

As I mentioned above, Christopher Eccleston does good work as the Doctor, but there’s a big problem with his character: the fact that he’s such an asshole. In subsequent incarnations, the Doctor seems to be more confused by humanity; here, the Doctor almost despises them. When he first says goodbye to Rose, after saving her from the mannequins in the episode’s opening, and he tells her to go back to her regular life and forget about him, he seems almost disgusted by her. While Tennant or Smith would probably have read that line as genuine, Eccleston fills it with dripping sarcasm, like he’s judging her for being a regular person, or that her inability to keep up with him is shameful. It would be fine if this side of him was portrayed in any sort of negative way, but it isn’t. It’s just one of his “quirks”, and it makes the Doctor pretty unlikeable. The Nestene are… not the worst Doctor Who villains. The idea behind evil mannequins is a good one; their frozen elbows/knees, melted together fingers, and lack of faces put them right at the bottom of the uncanny valley. Unfortunately, they don’t get to do much outside of the opening scene, and even that’s not terribly creepy (the fact that they kill with deadly karate chops undercuts any tension generated in their scenes). After that, the two faces of the Nestene are the poorly rendered plastic-lava-monster-face-thing and, easily the lowest point of the episode, plastic Mickey.

Plastic Mickey is one of those ideas you can’t believe ever made it out of the writer’s room. It’s hard to tell if his cheery, robotic attitude and random pop culture quotes are supposed to be funny or creepy, even though, in the end, it doesn’t matter. Plastic Mickey isn’t creepy or funny. He’s just stupid. Worse, he doesn’t even matter. He’s just a device used to stretch the story out to reach forty-five minutes and give Rose something resembling a dramatic arc.

Maybe, though, Plastic Mickey is a blessing in disguise. He lets us get away from Human Mickey, who’s just as bad as Plastic Mickey with the added negative of being a real live flesh-and-blood person. At least, he’s supposed to be. Mickey is an almost insulting caricature, a cowardly wuss who cares more about catching the last few minutes of a match than comforting his traumatized girlfriend. His conversation with Rose before she meets Clive (you know, that guy that everyone forgets about as soon as he’s left the frame) is confounding in its presentation of Mickey. Mickey’s arguments- that Rose shouldn’t meet with someone she’s only spoken with online because he might murder her- are logical and valid points, but they’re portrayed as comedy, with Mickey cast as some paranoid coward and Rose as the calm headed sensible one. When we leave Mickey clutching at Rose’s leg, hiding behind her, it’s both shocking and completely expected. Of course Mickey doesn’t get any redemption. Of course he doesn’t get any nuance or depth. What were we expecting?

The only character who suffers more than Mickey is Jackie. Including a companion’s parent as a major recurring character gives the companion a lot more depth than they might otherwise have, and pushes their eventual decision to join the Doctor in his travels into a grayer moral area. Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen with Jackie; she’s casted as a conceited, washed up woman who bosses Rose around and refuses to take any responsibility for her actions, which pulls Rose’s TARDIS decision back firmly into the “good” moral area. It’s hard to pick which scene of hers is the most insulting. Is it the one where, after finding out Rose was nearly killed in an explosion, she calls her friend and talks about how much younger she looks than her daughter? Is it the one where she tries to seduce the Doctor, which is played as comedy because, you know, middle aged women should know they’re not allowed to have any kind of sexual life? Is it the one where, after the Nestene’s final attack, Rose calls her to make sure she’s okay, only to hang up halfway through Jackie’s sentence, because why should Jackie know her daughter’s okay, why should Jackie know anything, or be given anything, because she’s such an awful horrible nagging shrew, right?

Jackie’s a good example of the weird misogyny that pervaded the Davies era of Doctor Who. He seemed to harbor this weird hatred for middle-aged women. Think about it- the three companions of his era (Rose, Martha, Donna) all had nagging mothers and kinder, more understanding fathers. Donna herself actually started out as a nagging older woman, only getting depth when she became a companion herself. Cassandra, the villain of next week’s episode, is another one of these characters, as is Harriet Jones in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. I’ll probably talk more about this later, but for now, suffice it to say it’s a major problem that not many people talk about.

Doctor Who is a great show. Even season one, which had a lot of problems to work through, ended up being a pretty good season. It had a rough start, though, one that gets even worse retrospectively. “Rose” isn’t the lowest the show would sink in its first season (I think we all know which farting aliens take that award), but it’s pretty close. Mickey and Jackie’s characters are offensively terrible, the Nestene are forgettable villains, and the plot is the sort of generic material you expect to find around episodes 3 or 4, where the writers are just looking for ways to reach 13 episodes. Instead, it’s our introduction to this world. The only reason, and I mean only reason, anyone stuck around for episode two was because of Rose and the Doctor. Other than them, “Rose” is a disappointing beginning to a fantastic show.

Other notes:

• Rose’s room is… extremely pink. I don’t buy that she would be that into pink • Christopher Eccleston’s falling through space monologue is great, even though it doesn’t make any sense • How can Christopher Eccleston be in all of those photos if he JUST regenerated, as was implied when he looked in Rose’s mirror and said “could be worse”? Can’t believe there’s a plot hole in Doctor Who. • Also, the photoshop on those photos is terrible

#doctor who #the doctor #christopher eccleston #rose tyler #billie piper #rose

3 notes · View notes

steven-p-warner · 7 years

Text

Trump’onomics: Proving Darwin wrong!

If Trump does plan to bring back jobs from China, Vietnam and India to US, he will have to reduce American wages by about 80-85% to ensure the same level of competitiveness. Is he willing to do that?

Steven Philip Warner | February 2017 Issue | The Dollar Business

Outcomes of the immediate last General Elections in three nations that matter most to an Indian exporter-importer are perhaps the most obvious evidences of how paradoxical the current situation is in this globalised market. Three nations: America, China and of course, India. While India saw its single-most popular nominee in many decades chosen to the nation’s corner office, and China (and its citizenry) was given no choice to decide on who was their Mr. Favourite, America saw its least-loved campaigner take the oath of office! [Wollah!]

Even on Presidential inauguration day, media channels around the world used words like “unbelievable”, “surprising”, “shocking”, “untrue”, and the likes, to get a grip of America, The White House and the world to be. And that’s purely because the man in charge of arugably the most influential nation in the world still – we say that because of how capable US is to finger-and-hand-twist power bodies like the Bretton Woods twins, NATO, UN, etc. – has a habit of saying whatever he feels makes that “moment” great with little respect or consideration of the ramifications of his eccentric vocal expressions. And when every time he talks about “how he forced those who hated him to concede”, we end up imagining how he may just force devastating changes on the natural pattern of trade and policy relations for not just America but the whole world. His ever-defiant ego is one representation of an independent thinking and unilateralist, who thinks his way, likes doing things his way, cares least about traditions, and has the audacity of announcing that values are for suckers and Russia a friend in public!

Historically, American presidents have been about “light-hearted caricatures”. Trump is all about “serious jokes”! [I remember one Jimmy Fallon show in the third week of January where he jests that “as per a recent survey, 70% of respondents said that the person they’d like to see at Trump’s inauguration function was “A New President”!] Historically, American presidents have been about experience in politics. He has been one about experience with controversies. Historically, American presidents have been about sober tongue and silence post-electoral college results. He has been one about taking his tweet count to newer highs. Historically, American presidents have been less about impulse (unlike the current class of Russia’s Putin and Turkey’s Erdogran). This one is about a constellation of ‘off-the-cuff’ impulse revolving around a heck of a gravitational ego. Historically, American Presidents are about playing “caring global daddies”. He’s not a world policeman – he’ll carpet bomb at will, mind you, but he’ll not sing lullabies to other sobbing Head of States. Historically, American Presidents are almost sure of what they say. He speaks against immigrants and H-1B Visas, while his very better Slovenian-born half is an immigrant herself! Somehow, this less popular, outlandish candidate becoming president has proven Darwin wrong. (Organisms evolve; yes?) The confusion however is – who’s the subject of defiance to Darwin’s Theory here – Trump or America’s voters? Or maybe most Americans decided that as Trump enjoyed shooting bizarre remarks during his campaign tours, they had a right to finger the wrong button on voting machines, hoping everyone else would choose the politically-logical candidate. Problem is – they all thought alike! So it happened. Trump won. America was surprised. And the world was shocked. And while Republicans and his supporters hope that he will keep his promise to build a wall, other nations who have big stakes in foreign trade (and their exporters and importers) still hope that he'll keep his promise, declare the election results “rigged by illegal immigrants” and step down!

Speaking of promise, some indication of how Trump becoming president could impact world trade and policy is obvious from his tweets. Like I said before, historically, American presidents have been about “silence post-results”. He has just made Twitter his hometown. But what percentage of those 140 characters emanated from his left-brain is questionable.

A quick analysis will give you a fair idea of how going forward, this Statesman will influence America’s road to greater or lesser global trade integration and impact millions of exporters across tens of other exporting nations that thrive on supplying manufacturing produce and rendering services to the world. Let us analyse some of his theories (of Trump’onomics) supported by 'his' tweets and understand what they mean when put under two scanners: Trump’onomics and Global Economics.

Trump’onomic theory #1: The world is celebrating his victory. Related tweet: “The world was gloomy before I won - there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10%...”

Analysis as per logical economics: For Trump, perhaps world market means just the American market. American stock exchanges behaved like reckless teenagers on hearing that he’s won the elections, but the fact that stock markets in the world’s top two populous nations (China and India) have fallen since Nov 8, 2016 (till Jan 20, 2017; including BSE, NSE, Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Hang Seng) proves how sound his theory of global markets is! (Yes, since Nov 8, the Russian index MICEX has appreciated by 10% to 2,200 points; is Russia the new world for Trump?)

Trump’onomic theory #2: Building a wall to celebrate a border is a symbol of a defiant and great neighbour, one which your neighbour will want and reciprocate by paying for it willingly!

Related tweets: “We must build a great wall between Mexico and the United States! Mexico will pay for the wall!”

Analysis as per logical economics: What inspires Trump to build the wall is a mystery. Five issues come to mind. First, Trump’s campaign rhetoric about illegal immigration and insistence that the US needs to build a border wall is hard to understand if one goes by the falling number of illegal immigrant apprehensions of Mexican nationals at US borders in the past seven years (the count has fallen by 62% since 2009, to 192,969 in CY2016) and the reduced count of illegal immigrants since its 2007 peak. Second, forgive Trump if he is drawing inspiration from The Great Wall of China, but can someone please tell him that the Wall cannot be actually seen from the moon? There are three more facts that don’t make The Great Wall of China a fitting comparison or inspiration. One, the Great Wall is within China, not on its border. Two, China paid for its own wall over centuries. And three, the Wall was meant to stop invaders, during the BC era when passports and Visas were non-existent. Talking about making Mexico pay for it – the nation’s political leaders, including both its current and former presidents, have already confessed that it is far too short on funds or willingness to do so. Going by Mexico’s economic situation, the only way in which Trump can force money out of his neighbour is by levying a double digit tax on remittances from Mexicans working in US. But if Trump were to push any federal tax on remittances down the US Congress’ throat, it would have to be applied to all foreigners in US; taxing just Mexicans would be discriminatory. And mind you, if Mexico was to fund this plan of Trump, it will have to bow down to other security measures that Trump has on mind. How about funding toilet papers for US border patrol agents next?

Trump’onomic theory #3: Reduce outsourcing to 0%. Related tweets: “Make in USA or pay big border tax! The Democrats are most angry that so many Obama Democrats voted for me. With all of the jobs I am bringing back to our Nation, that number will only get higher. Car companies and others, if they want to do business in our country, have to start making things here again. China has been taking out massive amounts of money from US in a totally one-sided trade. We will bring back our jobs.”

Analysis as per logical economics: Alright! Before this objective of Trump makes Obama look villainous, here’s the real story. When Obama took over, America’s unemployment rate was 7.8% (Jan 2009). When he left, it was down to 4.7% (Dec 2016). So, Obama has silently reduced unemployment rate to almost half. With such silence can Trump do too. But he won’t! That’s not his style because he’s just about learning to become a political figure! Back to Trump’s objective. The millions of jobs he wants to bring back to America was lost decades ago. And since then, more than borders, there is a new virus that’s doing the damage which he probably needs to be educated on – technology! What Trump intends to do is bring back 7 million jobs lost since the early 1980s back to America! Good morning Mr. President: FYI, all jobs aren’t being replaced by cheaper ones in China or Vietnam or India. Microchips, AI and smarter softwares have arrived. And therefore technically, you can’t bring back all the jobs lost! Confirms Wharton management professor Ann Harrison who writes in a Wharton Public Policy paper that, “If you try to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over and over again in the data is that it’s not trade that caused that — it’s primarily technology. 80% of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by machines and automation.”

"Forgive Trump if he is drawing any inspiration for his 'border wall' from The Great Wall of China, but can someone please tell him that the Chinese Wall cannot actually be seen from the moon?"

Now I’ll tell you what will happen. If Trump forces Apple to shift 100% of its iPhone and GM, Ford and Chrysler to shift 100% of their car-making assembly lines to US, it will actually force the non-American consumer to opt for cheaper alternatives to the American brands, which in turn will mean that first, the jobs went and now the company and brand themselves will! Minus Apple, the likes of Samsungs and LGs will roll in wealth. Minus GM, Rolls Royce and Ford, the Audis, Suzukis and BMWs will. Yes, if Trump's goal is to bring back manufacturing jobs, he can. But they won't be the same jobs US lost decades back. Instead of using the rod, he can incentivise and make American manufacturing plants look appealing for even Asian firms! And what if I told you that the very belief that America has lost jobs created by manufacturing is one wrongly founded? As per an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) research paper, US' manufacturing sector supported approximately 17.1 million indirect jobs in US, in addition to the 12 million persons directly employed in manufacturing, for a total of 29.1 million jobs – or more than 21% of total US employment in 2013. Here’s my final question on this theory: If Trump does plan to bring back jobs from China, Vietnam and India to US, he will have to reduce American wages by 80% to ensure the same level of competitiveness. Is he willing to do that?

Trump’onomic theory #4: Kill FTAs like NAFTA and those in the making like TPP. Related tweet: “NAFTA is the worst trade deal... and now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an attack on America's business.”

Analysis as per logical economics: There is a good reason to believe that Trump’s crusade against TPPs was largely driven by the Clinton factor and bad economics. It was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, an FTA that has not altogether been a sour deal for US. If trade deficit is all that Trump want to talk about then which trade treaty will he abuse in the name of blaming rising American deficit with China? As per the US Chamber of Commerce, six million US jobs depend on American trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. As per researches by the Wilson Center, 25% and 40% of the value of goods that are imported from Canada and Mexico into US respectively, are actually “Made in USA”! In fact, Wharton management professor Mauro Guillen, has been open about the benefits that NAFTA has had on US. He states in a Wharton paper that, “We have gained jobs thanks to NAFTA, jobs that were in Europe and Japan. In the 1990s, after NAFTA came into effect, companies like Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes and BMW established plants in Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and other states, for instance. Their suppliers also came.” And talking about TPP, it is true that much of the forecasted failures of this FTA to benefit America is based on the assumption that this deal is “altogether too foolish to make” – little early to say that given this FTA has no China still and actually hasn’t seen the light of the day! And what economics teaches us is that if US leaves TPP, China will benefit the most, as NYU professor Ghemawat concludes in his HBR article, ‘If Trump Abandons the TPP, China Will Be the Biggest Winner’. [But, since Trump says TPP is bad for America, he must be right. Oh! Actually, he is. Because American voters think he is.]

Trump’onomic theory #5: Global warming is non-sense. It’s Chinese propaganda. Environmental friendly products have no future. Stop manufacturing them.

Related tweet: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.”

Analysis as per logical economics: What does America do when it hears a Presidential candidate campaign against science, logic, experience, vaccination (you read it right), laboratory experiments and all things real? It gives him The White House! Economics and world trade have supported well-proven cases of scientists around the world – so bio-fuels, green technology, solar panels, etc., are increasingly becoming big business in foreign trade. But, if you are a Trump supporter, stop right there. Go back to the Hummers and side with Rex Tillerson!

This cover story deals with Trump and the impact his anti-outsourcing act will have on H-1B visas and India’s outsourcing industry. Does Trump even realise that given the differential between white collar salaries in US and India, even a 100% outsourcing tax will have practically little impact on India’s IT giants' relocation strategy. Given that salary differences between India and US across most white collar jobs areas range roughly between 300% to 500%, the only difference such a tax will make to Indian firms is their bottomlines. And if stricter rules on outsourcing and visas hit Indian companies, they will hold back from investing in US.

Trump’s take on the Turkey-Russia-US faction, at war Syria & ISIS, a hurt Israel, a sanction-free Iran, his new friend Putin, EU’s slim-down season, cursed Big Oil, tax reductions, job-gobbling monster of a China, and other such issues are all significant to decide the future of America's and world's foreign trade.

Trump’onomics makes little sense in most parts. It was probably thought of more as a campaign agenda and less to drive forward America’s foreign relations and trade with the world. Many claim that Trump will destroy relations that American importers and exporters have with their counterparts, especially with those across emerging nations like India, China, etc. His supporters opine that he will 'Make America Great Again'. Trump’onomics isn’t real. Economics is. Promising to bring back jobs and quarelling with neighbours isn’t going to make the impending inflation in America look prettier or Trump look younger.

Translation: US will lose if Trump sticks to Trump’onomics for very long. Remember, Americans are less than 5% of the world’s population. Someone tell Trump that. [Unless of course, his campaign slogan was meant to read, 'Make America primitive again'!]

#donald trump #us #foreign trade #h1b visa #fta #oil #foreign relation #economics #china

0 notes