President Trump

west didsblue said:
If you look at the current US administration as a criminal enterprise and the tariffs as a protection racket designed to make governments and corporations pay homage and hard cash to the mango Mussolini in exchange for the alleviation of tariffs, it makes a lot more sense. They don’t give a flying fuck about the strength of the US economy or any other (except possibly Russia).
Click to expand...
I think that this tack is off target.

For starters, Trump loves tariffs.

Secondly, Trump is surrounded by Project 2025 proponents and indeed authors.

So it's no mystery why Trump is 100% behind tariffs: his base mindset is very much pro-tariff and he's surrounded by America-first Project 2025 advocates who 100% back tariffs against any country that enjoys a net trade surplus when compared the USA.

I agree that the first round of tariffs were designed to coerce cooperation - but this round is, I think, meant to "make America great again" - by bringing manufacturing jobs to the USA.

And MAGA laps up that message - unaware of numerous factors complicating the issue - the chief two of which are:
1) Prices of goods will inevitably go up as a consequence of this policy;
2) Tariffs lead to market inefficiency - which is to say, that the country best able to produce a good should be allowed to produce it free of (most) restriction - because domestic production of said good would lead to higher prices for the consumer.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I personally advocate the continuance of free speech but with restrictions
Click to expand...
No such thing, surely? Free speech needs no qualification.

There used to be an overplayed trailer for BBC News' Hard Talk program including a clip from Musk saying that 'free speech means letting people you don't like say things you don't like' . What he should have added was 'as long as it's not about me'. How many Twitter accounts did he close down after the dissent from sacked employees?

Free speech is polarised - you allow it, or you don't. Just my opinion.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
the underlying problem in the USA isn't per-se a "controlled-input cult" - it's the fact that almost half of America believes in what Trump is doing at base level... and always have.
Click to expand...
Apologies @BlueMoonAcrossThePond - not having a go, just forgot to add this last time...

The problem is that they believe in him whatever he says, irrespective of the policy. If he says that he'll cure cancer next week, they'll believe him. They won't query the fact that he didn't, the week after, or at any time in the future.

I was alluding to that phenomenon, just not very skillfully.
 
noseve said:
No such thing, surely? Free speech needs no qualification.

There used to be an overplayed trailer for BBC News' Hard Talk program including a clip from Musk saying that 'free speech means letting people you don't like say things you don't like' . What he should have added was 'as long as it's not about me'. How many Twitter accounts did he close down after the dissent from sacked employees?

Free speech is polarised - you allow it, or you don't. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Your take is naive.

Curbs on absolute free speech already exist. It's a crime to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater if there is in fact no fire, for example.

Why? - because such speech is false and because it leads to clear societal danger if allowed.

And, IMO, there's zero difference between shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when no fire exists, and proclaiming obvious mistruths as fact in social media posts or news broadcasts, obscuring truth from fiction, rendering logical, fact-based reasoning impossible. Moreover, the later - outright lying without consequence in social media/news broadcasts, has far, far greater potential for human tragedy than crying "wolf" in a crowded theater.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I think that this tack is off target.

For starters, Trump loves tariffs.

Secondly, Trump is surrounded by Project 2025 proponents and indeed authors.

So it's no mystery why Trump is 100% behind tariffs: his base mindset is very much pro-tariff and he's surrounded by America-first Project 2025 advocates who 100% back tariffs against any country that enjoys a net trade surplus when compared the USA.

I agree that the first round of tariffs were designed to coerce cooperation - but this round is, I think, meant to "make America great again" - by bringing manufacturing jobs to the USA.

And MAGA laps up that message - unaware of numerous factors complicating the issue - the chief two of which are:
1) Prices of goods will inevitably go up as a consequence of this policy;
2) Tariffs lead to market inefficiency - which is to say, that the country best able to produce a good should be allowed to produce it free of (most) restriction - because domestic production of said good would lead to higher prices for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the manufacturing of ‘stuff’ almost seems to be symbol of virility, manhood and a country’s worth. Exporting good. Importing bad.

Just not sure how this works with an economy which is around 75% service based, an economy which hovers up cheap consumer goods on a massive scale as its principal method of growth. Most people in the US economy do not make things. 100% of people in the US economy buy things.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Your take is naive.

Curbs on absolute free speech already exist. It's a crime to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater if there is in fact no fire, for example.

Why? - because such speech is false and because it leads to clear societal danger if allowed.

And, IMO, there's zero difference between shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when no fire exists, and proclaiming obvious mistruths as fact, obscuring truth from fiction, rendering logical, fact-based reaction, impossible.
Click to expand...
We speak the same language but we interpret what free speech means differently.

The line is always used by people who want their opinions to be heard but no one else's that might challenge it.
 
I can see Europe coming back with digital tariffs for US "service" companies. knock on effect to big tech companies who don't make physical products.
 
TinFoilHat said:
The line is always used by people who want their opinions to be heard but no one else's that might challenge it.
Click to expand...
How so?

My proposal for news broadcast/social media posts is that an independent panel judges such posts - and if deemed non-factual, a warning is required along with a link to why the warning was issued.

Is this impossible?

I think not - the US judiciary - if you think about it - acts along these same lines... the presumption is that members of the judiciary - and in fact of the panel I propose to sit in judgement of social speech - is independent and seeks only justice/the truth.

And yes, the US judiciary is obviously biased - and selection to the judiciary I think needs massive improvement - yet my point remains. In the abstract it's certainly possible that a body could be elected/appointed by peers due to excellence of achievement and merit to sit in judgement of social media posts to enforce the rules I've outlined.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I think that this tack is off target.

For starters, Trump loves tariffs.

Secondly, Trump is surrounded by Project 2025 proponents and indeed authors.

So it's no mystery why Trump is 100% behind tariffs: his base mindset is very much pro-tariff and he's surrounded by America-first Project 2025 advocates who 100% back tariffs against any country that enjoys a net trade surplus when compared the USA.

I agree that the first round of tariffs were designed to coerce cooperation - but this round is, I think, meant to "make America great again" - by bringing manufacturing jobs to the USA.

And MAGA laps up that message - unaware of numerous factors complicating the issue - the chief two of which are:
1) Prices of goods will inevitably go up as a consequence of this policy;
2) Tariffs lead to market inefficiency - which is to say, that the country best able to produce a good should be allowed to produce it free of (most) restriction - because domestic production of said good would lead to higher prices for the consumer.
Click to expand...
I think you’re being a bit naive here.
The administration being a criminal enterprise and the push to implement Project 2025 are symbiotic.

Project 2025’s aim is to make the US a fascist dictatorship. Trump’s aim is to scam as much as he can from all and sundry and not suffer any consequences. Project 2025 delivers him his lifetime immunity by keeping him as President for life.

Personally think it will all crash and burn but there’s a lot of damage that will be done in the meantime, some of it permanent.
 
BobKowalski said:
There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit. A country is not a company and has no balance sheet or P/L account. If a company in the US imports cheap reading glasses from China it generates wealth for the US economy. The docks that receive the import, the company that transports/stores the import, the shops that employ people to sell the import, the sales tax on the import.

The US is a huge consumer machine that sucks in goods and services and grows on that consumption. Restrict that consumption or make it too expensive and the economy ceases to grow and starts to retract. You have to keep feeding that machine. The entire US economy is built on that machine.
Click to expand...
Where there is a trade deficit, the nations balance sheet will only balance if the nation sells assets to make up the difference. To say a nation has no balance sheet is wrong.

The National Balance Sheet - data.gov.uk

www.data.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
west didsblue said:
I think you’re being a bit naive here.
The administration being a criminal enterprise and the push to implement Project 2025 are symbiotic.

Project 2025’s aim is to make the US a fascist dictatorship. Trump’s aim is to scam as much as he can from all and sundry and not suffer any consequences. Project 2025 delivers him his lifetime immunity by keeping him as President for life.

Personally think it will all crash and burn but there’s a lot of damage that will be done in the meantime, some of it permanent.
Click to expand...
At this point I think we're mincing words. We're basically in violent agreement though I for sure would reword your argument in different terms to reach the same conclusion that you have.
 
KS55 said:
Where there is a trade deficit the nations balance sheet will only balance if the nation sells assets to make up the difference. To say a nation has no balance sheet is wrong.
Click to expand...

A nation has no balance sheet for trade.

A highly developed economy with an affluent consumer market will suck in imported goods to satisfy demand. Less developed, less affluent and it will suck in less.
 
BobKowalski said:
A nation has no balance sheet for trade.

A highly developed economy with an affluent consumer market will suck in imported goods to satisfy demand. Less developed, less affluent and it will suck in less.
Click to expand...
If you track the price of all goods exported by a nation and then subtract the price of all goods imported to a nation then do you not arrive at a "balance sheet for trade" - however misleading this metic may be?

Bottom line - the best economic result occurs when the cheapest manufacturer of goods is allowed to produce said goods. This "best outcome" is of course clouded by many factors yet is largely true in spite of complications.

As a result of Trump's tariffs, the price of goods worldwide is going to increase - probably dramatically - and economies worldwide are going to suffer. Should, by some miracle, Trump's tariffs hold for decades, then eventually manufacturing of goods now produced overseas will return to America, buoyed by price-fixing due to tariffs, enabling domestic manufactures to profit by selling overpriced goods to American consumers.

Will tariffs result in more, likely low-paying jobs for Americans (who don't want such jobs in the first place) - yes.

Will tariffs lead to a massive increase in the price of goods - almost certainly.

Will American consumers benefit from tariffs - even in the long run - no fucking way.
 
Last edited:
roubaixtuesday said:
Free trade is a left wing agenda?

Hahahahahahahaha!!!
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment that free trade (the topic) is a suburb ideal.
My point was more towards the typical presentation by the BBC, and particularly the female anchors, with the ultra aggressive often condescending presentation style that usually has a left leaning bent to it.
 
Silva Citizen said:
I agree with your sentiment that free trade (the topic) is a suburb ideal.
My point was more towards the typical presentation by the BBC, and particularly the female anchors, with the ultra aggressive often condescending presentation style that usually has a left leaning bent to it.
Click to expand...
In one single post you've managed to expose yourself as a radical, right-leaning, misogynist.
 
Silva Citizen said:
I agree with your sentiment that free trade (the topic) is a suburb ideal.
My point was more towards the typical presentation by the BBC, and particularly the female anchors, with the ultra aggressive often condescending presentation style that usually has a left leaning bent to it.
Click to expand...
What a very unusual post
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
In one single post you've managed to expose yourself as a radical, right-leaning, misogynist.
Click to expand...
You’ll be calling me a Rag next. Sorry I do not like modern news presenters that give an opinion or use emotional presentation to lead viewers. I much prefer being given the facts then being left to form my own opinion.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I’d sort of agree if we, the customer, were getting cheaper stuff as a result. What we’re actually getting are prices, that would generate big profits, if made in ‘the west’, giving enormous profits when outsourced.

Imagine Apple making iPhones in the US, charging the same as now but ‘only’ making 15% profit all of which they could do without any tariffs.
Click to expand...

We are getting massively cheaper stuff as a result.

Generic things like unbranded clothes, consumer electronics are a fraction of the price they used to be.

If you buy premium brands, you're paying for the brand, not the supply cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top