/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

IV. Market Impact on Country A

When Country C’s goods enter Country A:

Consumers rationally choose cheaper goods.

Domestic firms face declining margins.

Businesses close or offshore production.

Workers lose jobs.

Long-term consequences:

Deindustrialization

Rising unemployment

Reduced income base

Continued reliance on imported low-cost goods

A paradox emerges:

Workers lose employment → Yet depend on cheap imports → Reinforcing dependency

>>13650478

V. Profit Distribution Structure

Within the trade chain:

Profit of C producers = c₁ − c₀

Profit of merchant B = b − c

Profit of A’s domestic producers = diminished or eliminated

The restructuring of value chains leads to:

Profit concentration in low-cost producers and intermediaries

Erosion of domestic manufacturing in Country A

VI. Political Narrative Mechanisms

The model assumes that Country C’s ruling structure may employ ideological narratives to:

Attribute domestic hardships to external forces

Emphasize foreign exploitation

This serves to:

Redirect internal class tensions

Stabilize political authority

Meanwhile, Country A experiences:

Deindustrialization anxiety

Rise of protectionist politics

Increased political polarization

VIII. Diplomatic and Strategic Consequences

If Country A becomes highly dependent on imports from Country C:

Supply chains become strategic vulnerabilities.

Policy autonomy may be constrained.

Diplomatic leverage shifts.

In structural terms:

Economic dependency → Policy constraint → Strategic compromise risk

IX. Theoretical Significance

The “Industrial Fentanyl Model” seeks to explain:

Social consequences of deindustrialization

Power asymmetries within global value chains

Political effects of cost-suppression growth models

How trade dependency can evolve into geopolitical leverage

It does not assert inevitability, but provides a structural analytical lens.>>13650479

As long as this model helps with anything then it's good in that context, but every model has it's constrains.

For example Bangladesh exports many textiles and Turkey is known for hazel nuts, yet both of these aren't known for having centrally controlled economies.

Geopolitics and economies of scale ("every" tech bro going to Silicon Valley for opportunities with other like minded/skilled people) play a role as it's easier for hot climates to grow palm oil or coffee than cold climates.

If country C1 can make object O1 for $1 and object O2 for $2 and country C2 can make object O1 for $2 and object O2 for $1 (with negligent trade costs) than of course they would gain from producing what they're good at and trading with each other.

Lets assume every country has $10

For example C1 makes 10 O1 and C2 makes 10 O2. They trade and everyone has 5 of each object.

Without trade everyone can make only 5 of the object they are inefficient at making.

Also more developed economies don't extract raw materials or process them, but process the processed things from raw resources they imported. Developed countries don't make wooden buckets, but microchips (of course this is gross generalization), they then sell those microchips and buy lots of wooden buckets form other countries.