Tariffs

[Cyclotron]

We should get back to the topic of tariffs.

The Canadian milk tariff issue is easy to explain. For many dairy products the tariff can be zero to 7.5% within the quota. However with large imports exceeding the quota the tariffs rise much higher. This prevents foreign countries like the U.S. from monopolizing the Canadian dairy market to destroy small farmers then raise the price much higher later. No surprise here and it's stupid and irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy.

Here's the thing if Canada let the U.S. monopolize our dairy sector they would flood it with inferior crap then triple the price later like they always do. Then laugh about how anyone being stupid enough to let a foreign country take over an industry deserves higher prices. We know better than to let this happen. The U.S. has proven they cannot be trusted and are now a threat to national security. They cannot be trusted to control any domestic sectors including dairy.

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Oh, when it comes time for you to take your responsibility its time to get back to tariffs. When this whole recent sidebar is of your doing.

You don't get to turn it off just because you feel like it.

If we need to get back to tariffs, then apologize for taking us down this side bar and claim responsibility for your racist leader, cheating scandal, milk cartel, and your country's obvious issues now and in the past. Re-educate some natives recently? Crack cocaine leader again?  These are all yours.
 

[Cyclotron]

It's my fault, and I take full responsibility

I see that kind of thing said all the time, and yet what taking 'full responsibility' means isn't clear. So far as I can gather, uttering those words means the subject is now verboten without anything actually being done, whereas I would expect whoever is taking responsibility to suffer the consequences of whatever the issue is. If, for example, an employee has committed fraud on a customer and you are their boss, surely by taking responsibility you shoulder the blame and so suffer the consequences.

So, how are you taking 'full responsibility'?

Still trolling? How can I give penance in your eyes? Gun to the head, poison, shackles, whips.

Maybe you want to report me for this and get the moderators to ban me from the forum for my punishment?

[SteveThackery]

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Oh, wow, yet more 100% agreement with Electrodynamic.

If, right now, you thought of the US as a person, you would consider that person to be a complete twat. Fine: if the US wants to behave like it is doing, the best thing the rest of the world could do is reset all its relationships and alliances so they don't include the US.

It would be a terrible loss. The US has (largely) been a force for good for most of its history, and we have so much in common and a lot to be grateful for. But the kinds of threats the US has directed towards Canada and Greenland; the nasty, spiteful behaviour of the American people's chosen leader on the world stage; they are utterly beyond the pale.

It would also be extremely tough, but the world has survived other historical events of similar magnitude. America would always be welcome back, but only when it has learned how to behave.

I would love to see Canada, Australia, the UK and the rest of Western Europe form the closest possible relationship, politically and economically. Having to cope without the US would be a powerful common cause.

[Cyclotron]

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Oh, wow, yet more 100% agreement with Electrodynamic.

If, right now, you thought of the US as a person, you would consider that person to be a complete twat. Fine: if the US wants to behave like it is doing, the best thing the rest of the world could do is reset all its relationships and alliances so they don't include the US.

It would be a terrible loss. The US has (largely) been a force for good for most of its history, and we have so much in common and a lot to be grateful for. But the kinds of threats the US has directed towards Canada and Greenland; the nasty, spiteful behaviour of the American people's chosen leader on the world stage; they are utterly beyond the pale.

It would also be extremely tough, but the world has survived other historical events of similar magnitude. America would always be welcome back, but only when it has learned how to behave.

I would love to see Canada, Australia, the UK and the rest of Western Europe form the closest possible relationship, politically and economically. Having to cope without the US would be a powerful common cause.

I do not see Canada giving up its preferred trade membership in the NAFTA.  You really think the UK is going to pull out of UKUSFTA, or Australia is going to pull out of AUSFTA?
As we are now defining responsibility, these key trade partners get to take responsibility for their continued trade with and support of the US.

I have a very strong sense that the moral greed of these nations will prevail, which means they don't give a crap about the trolling of President Trump.

[KE5FX]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

[Cyclotron]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

I agree that trust is incredibly important. We in the US trusted our allies to pay their fair share for NATO, for instance.

[Electrodynamic]

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Oh, wow, yet more 100% agreement with Electrodynamic.

If, right now, you thought of the US as a person, you would consider that person to be a complete twat. Fine: if the US wants to behave like it is doing, the best thing the rest of the world could do is reset all its relationships and alliances so they don't include the US.

It would be a terrible loss. The US has (largely) been a force for good for most of its history, and we have so much in common and a lot to be grateful for. But the kinds of threats the US has directed towards Canada and Greenland; the nasty, spiteful behaviour of the American people's chosen leader on the world stage; they are utterly beyond the pale.

It would also be extremely tough, but the world has survived other historical events of similar magnitude. America would always be welcome back, but only when it has learned how to behave.

I would love to see Canada, Australia, the UK and the rest of Western Europe form the closest possible relationship, politically and economically. Having to cope without the US would be a powerful common cause.

I'm wondering what the end game is here if there is one, any thoughts?.

What the U.S. is doing is like a company calling their customers stupid and then threatening to destroy them if they buy/trade elsewhere. They are obviously driving away business and customers but to what end?.

It relates to psychology and abusive/psychotic people who gaslight. They often push people to the breaking point just to get a reaction then claim to be a victim after the people react which is classic gaslighting. I wonder, could the U.S. be trying to provoke other countries to get them to react then declare them the enemy?. This would explain the language we see in the U.S. where they are the perpetual victim and everyone else the aggressor.

I have this bad feeling this situation is just the beginning of something much worse.

[tom66]

I'm wondering what the end game is here if there is one, any thoughts?.

What the U.S. is doing is like a company calling their customers stupid and then threatening to destroy them if they buy/trade elsewhere. They are obviously driving away business and customers but to what end?.

It relates to psychology and abusive/psychotic people who gaslight. They often push people to the breaking point just to get a reaction then claim to be a victim after the people react which is classic gaslighting. I wonder, could the U.S. be trying to provoke other countries to get them to react then declare them the enemy?. This would explain the language we see in the U.S. where they are the perpetual victim and everyone else the aggressor.

I have this bad feeling this situation is just the beginning of something much worse.

Opinion:

Trump really couldn't give two shits about being president, it's a means to an end for him. He gives no regard or respect for the office, and uses it purely to enrich himself and his cronies.  (And yes, this isn't unique in the history of the office, but Trump is the most open about this so far.)

Trump has one goal and one goal only: to not go to prison and/or face the consequences of past actions, whilst staying rich.

To avoid prison time and to avoid personal bankruptcy (death by lawsuit) he needs to be re-elected president.

The Constitution has something to say about that but there may be a loophole whereby he can run as VP, the president then stands down and he becomes president again.  It has yet to be determined if this is unconstitutional.  In any case even if he does not directly run he at least needs a Republican POTUS to protect him.

So, Trump wants to curry favor with his base which is mostly in the red states, which do a lot of farming, manufacturing, traditional working class jobs, and needs to switch a few purple states to red.  Tariffs might help bring some jobs back - they're overall economically a negative but they do work if your goal is to force more stuff to be made in country.

He doesn't give a rats ass what California cares about because he'll never win that state.  So he's doubling down on policies which (probably) a plurality of people dislike, but enough states that have EC votes like.

It's yet another reason American politics is broken.  But I guess I'm glad I'm not American!  (Don't worry, us Brits have our own broken politics too.)

[Analog Kid]

Trump has one goal and one goal only: to not go to prison and/or face the consequences of past actions, whilst staying rich.

Oh, and let's don't forget his other, possibly real overriding goal here:
To leave his stamp on world history. To enbiggerize his already ginormous ego by securing his name in the books.
And to finally get that totally undeserved Nobel prize, even more undeserved than Obama's.

[PlainName]

How can I give penance in your eyes? Gun to the head, poison, shackles, whips.

Not only am I not after penance, I've not asked for you to take responsibility for anything.

I was asking what you meant by that phrase. Was it just empty words or did you have something in mind?

[Cyclotron]

I'm wondering what the end game is here if there is one, any thoughts?.

What the U.S. is doing is like a company calling their customers stupid and then threatening to destroy them if they buy/trade elsewhere. They are obviously driving away business and customers but to what end?.

It relates to psychology and abusive/psychotic people who gaslight. They often push people to the breaking point just to get a reaction then claim to be a victim after the people react which is classic gaslighting. I wonder, could the U.S. be trying to provoke other countries to get them to react then declare them the enemy?. This would explain the language we see in the U.S. where they are the perpetual victim and everyone else the aggressor.

I have this bad feeling this situation is just the beginning of something much worse.

Opinion:

Trump really couldn't give two shits about being president, it's a means to an end for him. He gives no regard or respect for the office, and uses it purely to enrich himself and his cronies.  (And yes, this isn't unique in the history of the office, but Trump is the most open about this so far.)

Trump has one goal and one goal only: to not go to prison and/or face the consequences of past actions, whilst staying rich.

To avoid prison time and to avoid personal bankruptcy (death by lawsuit) he needs to be re-elected president.

The Constitution has something to say about that but there may be a loophole whereby he can run as VP, the president then stands down and he becomes president again.  It has yet to be determined if this is unconstitutional.  In any case even if he does not directly run he at least needs a Republican POTUS to protect him.

So, Trump wants to curry favor with his base which is mostly in the red states, which do a lot of farming, manufacturing, traditional working class jobs, and needs to switch a few purple states to red.  Tariffs might help bring some jobs back - they're overall economically a negative but they do work if your goal is to force more stuff to be made in country.

He doesn't give a rats ass what California cares about because he'll never win that state.  So he's doubling down on policies which (probably) a plurality of people dislike, but enough states that have EC votes like.

It's yet another reason American politics is broken.  But I guess I'm glad I'm not American!  (Don't worry, us Brits have our own broken politics too.)

I am not aware of any non-dictatorship that isn't broken in some or many ways.  Whichever side is in office has parts of the country it favors for an "F-the-rest" attitude.  Clinton called them the "basket of deplorables".  She and her party have no interest in those people's interests. There's no common ground.  Look at Congress finding half of itself not able to even clap for 13 year old cancer kid because they might be seen as having something in common with the right.

The large populations in the cities of the US outnumber those in rural areas, and those two groups have vastly different ideas about how they wish to be governed. I think a key polarization event occurred with Barack Obama, who declared, "Elections have consequences," which meant he wasn't interested in finding common ground; it was his way or the highway. He then taunted Trump and his supporters, which only led to their rise. What a statesman.

The posts by ED here indicate that they see themselves and Canada as the victim and share no responsibility for their country's issues or the shared ones with the US as allies.
Canada has a lot of folks/territory that want out. There are upcoming votes to secede from Canada and many pushing for closer ties to the US. Not everyone is scared, as ED describes itself as what the US is going to do.

I believe Trump wants to be adored, and he is very likely to do things that will get that adoration from his supporters. His record so far on actual things he's done lines up extraordinarily well with what he promised, except for those E-Files. His comments on Greenland are accurate in its strategic location. I don't agree with his comments on taking it by force, and I don't believe for a second it was ever seriously contemplated. Just a dumbass said by a dumbass.

[PlainName]

His record so far on actual things he's done lines up extraordinarily well with what he promised

Only if you stretch 24 hours to over a year (and counting). And that's just one thing - plenty more examples.

[Cyclotron]

I for one continue to support trade with Canada and the UK.

[SteveThackery]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

I agree that trust is incredibly important. We in the US trusted our allies to pay their fair share for NATO, for instance.

I agree - it was completely wrong that most of the rest of the NATO countries went for decades without paying their 2%. They took for granted that the US would always be there for them.

On this particular issue Trump was right - the US was being exploited by its NATO partners. There is a caveat, though: the point of NATO is that the border between the US and the threat from the east was down the eastern border of Europe, a convenient 4000 miles away from America. Without NATO that border would be down the east coast of America. So the US's largesse in supporting the rest of NATO wasn't entirely selfless.

[Cyclotron]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

I agree that trust is incredibly important. We in the US trusted our allies to pay their fair share for NATO, for instance.

I agree - it was completely wrong that most of the rest of the NATO countries went for decades without paying their 2%. They took for granted that the US would always be there for them.

On this particular issue Trump was right - the US was being exploited by its NATO partners. There is a caveat, though: the point of NATO is that the border between the US and the threat from the east was down the eastern border of Europe, a convenient 4000 miles away from America. Without NATO that border would be down the east coast of America. So the US's largesse in supporting the rest of NATO wasn't entirely selfless.

That point seems valid only if NATO is understood as protecting members only from the people on the other side of a particular border.  The US provides a very large bulwark and directly protects its own borders (more so now).  Your statement implies that the threat comes across borders, but invasion is a problem for Europe, as seen in Ukraine, not so much for the US. We only need to look at the failed invasion of Britain in World War II to see the massive problem posed by sea-borne invasion against a well-established land force.  The Allies were only barely successful in some views on D-Day. Many even claimed it was a success by matter of luck.  No, the oceans are a huge problem, and anyone wishing to attack the US does so by terrorism or missiles. Not counting illegal immigration invasions.

[TimFox]

Technically, the payments directly to NATO for its operation from the member countries were paid properly.
The 2% of GDP to military budgets was a recommendation, which many members did not meet.
Only three members met the 2% guideline in 2014, but all are expected to meet it now.
That guideline was adopted in 2006, re-adopted in 2014, and extended to 3.5% (by 2035) in 2025.
Another clause goes to 5%, including other infrastructure, etc. expenditures.
 https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment

[tom66]

I am not aware of any non-dictatorship that isn't broken in some or many ways.  Whichever side is in office has parts of the country it favors for an "F-the-rest" attitude.  Clinton called them the "basket of deplorables".  She and her party have no interest in those people's interests. There's no common ground.  Look at Congress finding half of itself not able to even clap for 13 year old cancer kid because they might be seen as having something in common with the right.

Yeah.  I agree here.  US politics is polarised to a great degree.  The fact is that the presidential election is usually decided by about 5-10% swing voters in the middle.  Most people are red or blue and don't change.  Turnout is a big factor too. Kamala probably lost not because people liked Trump but because people didn't like her enough to turn out on a cold November Thursday to vote.  (And seriously, what were they thinking with letting Biden continue? So many unforced errors!)

Truth be told I don't know how you fix that polarisation.   But a good start would be reforming the voting system.  Voting should be on a popular vote basis so at least it is not determined by only a few states and candidates have to campaign everywhere rather than at the swing states. 

But it's so entrenched on both sides, only a catastrophic event (like war or total economic collapse perhaps) could ever shake it up.

So, in the meantime, you're going to be stuck with Trump making his mark with tariffs and trade policy, and enriching himself, because the other side couldn't arrange a pissup in a brewery.  But perhaps it's intentional incompetence?  I think there are a great deal of politicians who like sniping from the sidelines, and don't want the responsibility of power.  I think the UK's Farage is quite like that... I suspect if he did find himself in the PM's chair, he'd not quite know what to do.

[TimFox]

I am not aware of any non-dictatorship that isn't broken in some or many ways.  Whichever side is in office has parts of the country it favors for an "F-the-rest" attitude.  Clinton called them the "basket of deplorables".  She and her party have no interest in those people's interests. There's no common ground.  Look at Congress finding half of itself not able to even clap for 13 year old cancer kid because they might be seen as having something in common with the right.

Yeah.  I agree here.  US politics is polarised to a great degree.  The fact is that the presidential election is usually decided by about 5-10% swing voters in the middle.  Most people are red or blue and don't change.  Turnout is a big factor too. Kamala probably lost not because people liked Trump but because people didn't like her enough to turn out on a cold November Thursday to vote.  (And seriously, what were they thinking with letting Biden continue? So many unforced errors!)

Truth be told I don't know how you fix that polarisation.   But a good start would be reforming the voting system.  Voting should be on a popular vote basis so at least it is not determined by only a few states and candidates have to campaign everywhere rather than at the swing states. 

But it's so entrenched on both sides, only a catastrophic event (like war or total economic collapse perhaps) could ever shake it up.

So, in the meantime, you're going to be stuck with Trump making his mark, and enriching himself, because the other side couldn't arrange a pissup in a brewery.  But perhaps it's intentional incompetence?  I think there are a great deal of politicians who like sniping from the sidelines, and don't want the responsibility of power.  I think the UK's Farage is quite like that... I suspect if he did find himself in the PM's chair, he'd not quite know what to do.

The Electoral College system in the US may be unique.
Personally, my solution is to increase the size of the House of Representatives:  it is set by statute, and was last increased in 1929 (to 435) when the US population was roughly 1/3 of its present value.
(There was a short-term increase when Hawaii and Alaska were added as States, until the next Apportionment with the 1960 census.)
That would make the representation in the Electoral College closer to equal, although small states such as Wyoming will still get 3 votes (2 Senators plus 1 Representative).
In the UK, you don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, either.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN11547

[tom66]

Yeah, the UK voting system is bad.  I blame Brexit in part on that system. 

I think New Zealand and Australia have probably the best systems of any democracy - but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of politicians.

[tautech]

Yeah, the UK voting system is bad.  I blame Brexit in part on that system. 

I think New Zealand and Australia have probably the best systems of any democracy - but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of politicians.

Aussie is quite different to us in that they have State governance and Federal governance, appropriate for the massive size of the place yet this brings about significant inconsistency in leglistration country wide.

NZ OTOH has just one parliament based on the Westminster system but no longer a FPTP system since we went to a proportional system a few decades back.

While we now have increased representation and more middle representation we also have more fringe party nutters that must first meet 5% of the vote to get within the house and luckily unlikely, to implement any change they need also get to be part of our what now seems normal, coalition gubbermints.

Some recent discussion has been to extend the 3yr period in office to 4 or even 5 but after the economic damage the last crowd did I'm not sure many will be in favor of longer terms before we can boot them out.

[tszaboo]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

I agree that trust is incredibly important. We in the US trusted our allies to pay their fair share for NATO, for instance.

We did, we went into war that was started by the USA.
The only country that ever needed Article 5 was the USA.
But you also want our money. It's very satisfying to see that almost all EU countries decided to shop around in other EU countries for that 3% spending.

[Analog Kid]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

I agree that trust is incredibly important. We in the US trusted our allies to pay their fair share for NATO, for instance.

We did, we went into war that was started by the USA.

You're referring to the proxy war in Ukraine, right?
100% correctamundo there.

[Electrodynamic]

Technically, the payments directly to NATO for its operation from the member countries were paid properly.
The 2% of GDP to military budgets was a recommendation, which many members did not meet.
Only three members met the 2% guideline in 2014, but all are expected to meet it now.
That guideline was adopted in 2006, re-adopted in 2014, and extended to 3.5% (by 2035) in 2025.
Another clause goes to 5%, including other infrastructure, etc. expenditures.
 https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment

I tend to agree but it's a dodgy proposition when the country pointing the finger at others and raising the percentage of GDP has the most to gain from the sales of weapons to other countries. This notion reinforced by threats and intimidation by the U.S. against Canada if they did not purchase U.S. made weapons. Most think Mark Carney made a brilliant move by looking to purchase EU/UK weapons like the Gripen fighter jets. I like the EU and the UK, they have been true allies through thick and thin.

I would also note the U.S. spends an insane amount of money on defense however it's generally to serve their own interests not NATO specifically. It's funny how countries without oil go to the bottom of the pecking order.

I get it, we want to serve our own interests first. However claiming righteousness when it lines our own pockets is disingenuous imo. 

[soldar]

Yeah, the UK voting system is bad.  I blame Brexit in part on that system. 

I think New Zealand and Australia have probably the best systems of any democracy - but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of politicians.

Let me give you another point of view.

I do not believe Brexit was a result of the UK voting system but a result of populist BS and a BS referendum where it was not even clear what was being voted. If it had adhered to UK voting system it would have been discussed and voted by MPs in Parliament.

Western style democracy is a fantasy where the common people believe their vote really counts. I have not voted for decades because I believe the entire system is rigged and all politicians and parties want us to play their game. I look at soccer teams. Of course they all want to win but the fact is they have their tournaments of this and that and they ALL live off of that. It does not matter whether they win or lose it is still their business. It is better for them if they win but they do not care too much if they lose. What they do care about and what would scare them is if people stopped watching soccer and started doing something else.

Politicians would like to win but what they really want is for the people to support them by believing in the system, in western style democracy. But the fact is the common person has no say and no input and he is just asked to vote for candidates others in power have elected beforehand. It's a con game.

Also, the political system has little to do with good government. A bad political system can be made to work with a people who are responsible, moral, working, well meaning, etc. and the best political system will fail with a people of liars, cheaters, scoundrels, corrupt, thieves, etc. We do not have to change the political system as much as we need to change ourselves.

You look at the British first past the post system and see its shortcomings and indeed it does have them. But then I am in a country with more of a proportional representation and it is far worse. In UK at least politicians answer to their constituents but in Spain they answer only to the party that nominated them.

Spain has been changing political systems for over two centuries now, always looking for a better one but never finding a suitable one. Not realizing that the problem is not the political system but a people and a culture of corruption, liars, scoundrels, thieves, cheaters, immorality, etc. There is no political system that can work with a people like that.

One of the stupidest beliefs of western people is the dogma that western style democracy is an absolute value above everything else. Then we are surprised when we invade countries with the ostensible intention of installing democracies and it never works. Of course I believe the real intentions are others and never spoken out loud.

The UK system has worked well for a long time and if it is not working so well now I would ask what has changed rather than changing the system because you might be surprised that the new system is worse than the old system. And the new boss is the same as the old boss.

UK has worked well by adhering to tradition, convention, respect and making an old system work. I would tread very carefully because you might discover things can get worse.

 

[tom66]

One thing I think people miss about NATO is it doesn't really own much of anything.  Almost all of the equipment is owned by the allies themselves.  NATO owns some of the sigint stuff, like a few AWACS, where it wouldn't be particularly beneficial if e.g. only the USA or UK owned that (lots of issues sharing intelligence, so gather it yourself and share it to all the allies, bypass the bureaucracy). So when people talk about the US not buying stuff for NATO...well, I mean, most US equipment is stationed abroad, we have no idea if they would use it in the event of a NATO-involved conflict, but the same is true for any NATO ally.