-
Look at that from a different angle. Perhaps many creatures in this world are now too annoyed by the noisy games of that selfish kids. The kind of noise and the reasoning does not matter. Heck, my grandma and grandpa both had disappeared without the traces in the forced labor camps here just before the WW2. But in the other circumstances, they could be among those poor souls fooled to take part in the gold rush somewhere at Nome or Klondike. Different methods, same outcome. Under no circumstances could they be left alone to grow their own food. And that's obvious, a skilled fraudster can incur more damage than an incompetent one. Which are the most polluting countries? The fact that the majority of that dirty factories with their dirty proletarians are moved to the back yard changes nothing. The activity is going on and still growing. It not only emits a lot of smoke but causes to the worldwide population growth and more guys who previously were throwing the camel's poo to each other now are enthusiastically throwing the bullets from machine guns. From that point, everything that disrupts the economic activity, or at least puts a cup on its growth, seems a good thing
-
China companies still compete with each other. Its what set it apart from the USSR, the limited free market reforms under Deng.. which are slowly being undone.
In USSR, at least two state-owned companies were working on the same engineering problem. Specifically with the purpose of competition
oligopoly is not effective competition -
This is a really good opportunity for Europe to look attractive to investors whilst America goes off the deep end. Hopefully we don't squander the advantage... what's the saying, never interrupt your opponent while they are making a mistake?
-
This is a really good opportunity for Europe to look attractive to investors whilst America goes off the deep end. Hopefully we don't squander the advantage... what's the saying, never interrupt your opponent while they are making a mistake?
What Chump has sold to his ppl on the pretense of protecting US manufacturing/production is a deception when all they will see is inflation as the main byproduct of trying to get the US balance of trade corrected.
Just whom will be most affected is what the jury is still out considering..... -
US dollar hegemony and US manufacturing competitiveness/US trade defict are contradictory to each other，you could only keep one. If Trump is trying to have his cake and eat it too, it is doomed to fail
-
Nobody outside of the US can trust the current US administration. They made severe errors, like signing a free trade contract with Canada and Mexico and some years later violating it by the introduction of new tariffs.
Remains to be seen whether his fellow Americans will follow their president.
Unless there is a US plant for TFT screens as used in TVs, they can stop buying TVs - thus reducing the deficit. They can also stop buying cars, as even US cars depend on overseas parts. How about smartphones and household equipment? Isn't that made overseas as well? In a democracy people asking their fellows to reduce consumption will disappear soon. It always happens in the context of climate change.
An AI might conclude that democracy should be terminated as it causes more climate change.
Regards, Dieter -
Consider Lesotho: an African country that is probably not known to the decision makers who imposed a 50% reciprocal tariff on it.
In Trump's first speech to the US Congress since returning to power, he said the US will cut aid to Lesotho and that it is an African nation "nobody has ever heard of".
It is a poor country, that probably cannot afford much imports from the US.
"Poor" is an understatement, most of the population has absolutely nothing (or had, it's been awhile since I was there so I didn't know about the clothing manufacturing, good on them for creating a source of income). The extreme poverty means its imports from the US will be essentially if not actually zero, particularly since it's entirely surrounded by SA and most of its imports, food and other essentials, are from that. It's criminal, but also depressingly predictable, that an AI-generated list of random figures has decided to take away from people who already have next to nothing. -
It's criminal, but also depressingly predictable, that an AI-generated list of random figures has decided to take away from people who already have next to nothing.
That will happen inside the US too.
There will be inflation, which hits everybody and the poorest hardest. President Chamberlain has repeatedly stated he will reduce taxes, which will benefit those that pay the most taxes - i.e. not the poor.
It is an accelerated continuation of what's been happening in the last 30 years: concentrating money in the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes. Trump/Farage/LePen/etc are partly a reaction on the part of the unsophisticated plebs to that concentration. While I agree with the plebs' observations, I disagree with their "solution" - which is partly a result of not knowing what else to do.
Thomas Picketty has made interesting comparisons with what has happened in the past. It will be "interesting" to see what happens this time around.
Add to that the observations of the CEO of a very large insurance company: "...Capitalism must now solve this existential threat.... That means no more mortgages, no new real estate development, no long-term investment, no financial stability. The financial sector as we know it ceases to function. And with it, capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable...." in "Climate, Risk, Insurance: The Future of Capitalism" Günther Thallinger, Allianz SE. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climate-risk-insurance-future-capitalism-g%C3%BCnther-thallinger-smw5f/ Clearly he is not a mouthy marxist!
"Interesting times" indeed.
-
I would say the US got Trump because the alternative, of more of the same centre-right politics from the Democrats, was not appealing. And it will keep happening as long as the only options are "slightly less right wing" and "right wing".
-
I would say the US got Trump because the alternative, of more of the same centre-right politics from the Democrats, was not appealing. And it will keep happening as long as the only options are "slightly less right wing" and "right wing".
I've never liked the "right wing" vs "left wing" narrative, and find it extremely unhelpful. As far as I (and Goebbels and Stalin) can see, the far left and far right are indistinguishable. To me a better distinction is between those that believe in a self-supporting inclusive society, and those that don't.
JMS nailed that (and too many other things) in Babylon 5, with the fundamental differences between the Shadows and the Vorlons. And their fundamental similarities, too. Before revealing their philosophies, JMS reckoned that about 1/3 of the audience would support the Shadows' philosophy. -
I would say the US got Trump because the alternative, of more of the same centre-right politics from the Democrats, was not appealing. And it will keep happening as long as the only options are "slightly less right wing" and "right wing".
I've never liked the "right wing" vs "left wing" narrative, and find it extremely unhelpful. As far as I (and Goebbels and Stalin) can see, the far left and far right are indistinguishable. To me a better distinction is between those that believe in a self-supporting inclusive society, and those that don't.
JMS nailed that (and too many other things) in Babylon 5, with the fundamental differences between the Shadows and the Vorlons. And their fundamental similarities, too. Before revealing their philosophies, JMS reckoned that about 1/3 of the audience would support the Shadows' philosophy.
Horseshoe theory is mostly bollocks. You might have a point when you're talking about extremists, like eco-terrorists, but in general it's not a useful view.
Left wing parties are generally more socialist, pro-environment, pro-workers rights.
Right wing parties are generally more pro-capital.
That's a useful distinction and in that sense both mainstream parties in the USA are right wing, just to slightly different degrees. It is always amusing to me when people say the Democrats are left wing. They are not even close.
The biggest issue with the true left wing parties is they have been taken over by, for lack of a better word, morons. That promote things like anti-nuclear power, unlimited immigration and never putting women in prison for instance (like our UK green party).
It would be nice to have a "sensible" left wing party again, one that supported workers rights, was pro-environment, recognised that unfettered immigration is bad, but wasn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with big corporations that exploit people and our environment, and wouldn't roll over the moment Russia said something mean about us. A bit like some of the Danish left wing parties for instance.
It seems that neither mainstream party in the UK is willing to do that. And I think that's where the reactionary far right votes come from here. For the US I think something similar is true. Lost voters for whom the far right says what they want to hear -- they won't actually fix anything, but they're saying all the right things to them. -
That's a useful distinction and in that sense both mainstream parties in the USA are right wing, just to slightly different degrees. It is always amusing to me when people say the Democrats are left wing. They are not even close.
There's a saying here in the UK that goes like this:
"In America there are two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats are the equivalent of, erm, our Conservative party." -
I would say the US got Trump because the alternative, of more of the same centre-right politics from the Democrats, was not appealing. And it will keep happening as long as the only options are "slightly less right wing" and "right wing".
I've never liked the "right wing" vs "left wing" narrative, and find it extremely unhelpful. As far as I (and Goebbels and Stalin) can see, the far left and far right are indistinguishable. To me a better distinction is between those that believe in a self-supporting inclusive society, and those that don't.
JMS nailed that (and too many other things) in Babylon 5, with the fundamental differences between the Shadows and the Vorlons. And their fundamental similarities, too. Before revealing their philosophies, JMS reckoned that about 1/3 of the audience would support the Shadows' philosophy.
Horseshoe theory is mostly bollocks. You might have a point when you're talking about extremists, like eco-terrorists, but in general it's not a useful view.
I was, quite explicitly, talking about the far left/right, i.e. the extremists. Other forms of extremism are a red herring, and should be ignored in this discussion.
Left-vs-right has always been too simplistic: life and politics are multi-dimensional.QuoteLeft wing parties are generally more socialist, pro-environment, pro-workers rights.
Right wing parties are generally more pro-capital.
That's a useful distinction and in that sense both mainstream parties in the USA are right wing, just to slightly different degrees. It is always amusing to me when people say the Democrats are left wing. They are not even close.
Too simplistic. Left vs right is always relative. Nonetheless, Merkins do believe the internal propaganda about politics outside their state/country.QuoteThe biggest issue with the true left wing parties is they have been taken over by, for lack of a better word, morons. That promote things like anti-nuclear power, unlimited immigration and never putting women in prison for instance (like our UK green party).
It would be nice to have a "sensible" left wing party again, one that supported workers rights, was pro-environment, recognised that unfettered immigration is bad, but wasn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with big corporations that exploit people and our environment, and wouldn't roll over the moment Russia said something mean about us. A bit like some of the Danish left wing parties for instance.
The right wing parties are equally guilty of such idiocies. The specific idiocies are different, of course.
Hence your concentrating on left wing idiocies is unbalanced.QuoteIt seems that neither mainstream party in the UK is willing to do that. And I think that's where the reactionary far right votes come from here. For the US I think something similar is true. Lost voters for whom the far right says what they want to hear -- they won't actually fix anything, but they're saying all the right things to them.
There we pretty much agree. -
That's a useful distinction and in that sense both mainstream parties in the USA are right wing, just to slightly different degrees. It is always amusing to me when people say the Democrats are left wing. They are not even close.
There's a saying here in the UK that goes like this:
"In America there are two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats are the equivalent of, erm, our Conservative party."
Yes, except what is this "Conservative Party" of which you speak?
and 
-
That promote things like anti-nuclear power, unlimited immigration and never putting women in prison for instance (like our UK green party).
They have been partly forced into it by the left wing media. Look at Sanders in the US, bullied until he bend the knee. Or Corbyn in the UK, bullied into resigning.
Right wing populists have an easier time with media than left wing populists. -
That promote things like anti-nuclear power, unlimited immigration and never putting women in prison for instance (like our UK green party).
They have been partly forced into it by the left wing media. Look at Sanders in the US, bullied until he bend the knee. Or Corbyn in the UK, bullied into resigning.
Right wing populists have an easier time with media than left wing populists.
What "left wing media"? Do you mean "main stream media"?
This has nothing to do with tariffs. -
Except our two main parties, both Labour and Conservative are essentially the same.That's a useful distinction and in that sense both mainstream parties in the USA are right wing, just to slightly different degrees. It is always amusing to me when people say the Democrats are left wing. They are not even close.
There's a saying here in the UK that goes like this:
"In America there are two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats are the equivalent of, erm, our Conservative party." -
There are only reasonable people and extremists. I am just as skeptical of utopians as I am of authoritarians.
Both insist they know how you should behave.
But, the current US populist is the creation of the Clintons. They pushed white collar globalization while creating nothing burger retraining programs for the blue collars, then laughed up their sleeves at those who got left behind.
Of course there was going to come about a desire to blow up the system. Look to the French Revolution.
But, where Mussolini (and his protege) made sure his masses got a piece of the pie for a couple years, the current leader of the USA has not. And THAT will be the sword he falls on. As I said elsewhere, even Ted Cruz is now worried.
Remember, the USA has always had simmering and overboiling social and economic differences. The calm period after WWII was an aberration. -
what happens if Netherlands refuses to cooperate with US ... In case you were wondering.. its not just the places that have foundries.. its the tech behind them which is far more critical.. and bing.. bing.. bing.... ASML controls the tech space there.. Its far faster and expedient to retool existing foundries in the rest of Asia... so yeah.. all this is just smoke and mirrors show..
I love this european blah blah, if you do this we will do this. If Russia attacks ukraine, we will stop buying gas!! We'll freeze in winter. We'll buy more expensive gas from United States!! It's entertainment 100500.
What happens if United States stops selling gas to netherlands? Gonna rebuild nord stream and buy gas from Russia?
I guess the Netherlands could buy gas from Australia! West Oz still has some, the other states thought it would be a good idea to sell everything that came out of the wells to overseas customers & now have to buy it back.QuoteYou'll do exactly what United States wants you to do, that's the bottom line. Because without U.S.A. you are screwed.
-
There are only reasonable people and extremists. I am just as skeptical of utopians as I am of authoritarians.
Both insist they know how you should behave.
Yup. But I think there is an irregular adjective waiting to be articulated. "I am reasonable, you are X, they are Y".QuoteOf course there was going to come about a desire to blow up the system. Look to the French Revolution.
...
Remember, the USA has always had simmering and overboiling social and economic differences. The calm period after WWII was an aberration.
There are many examples other than the French revolution, several of them being in the USA. FFI, see Thomas Picketty.
If you think it was calm in the US after WW2, then clearly you don't remember the 1960s! -
But, where Mussolini (and his protege) made sure his masses got a piece of the pie for a couple years, the current leader of the USA has not. And THAT will be the sword he falls on. As I said elsewhere, even Ted Cruz is now worried.
Trump will fall on the sword regardless, because any attempt at transitioning to trade balance for the US will be immensely disruptive, successful or not. If democrats grab congress the US can have the executive force trade balance and congress run an expansionist policy relatively soon though. -
Another view is this is nothing more than trump getting both world and business leaders to kowtow to him in order to gain a more favourable deal,the further they grovel the better the deal and the more trumps ego gets stroked.
-
But, where Mussolini (and his protege) made sure his masses got a piece of the pie for a couple years, the current leader of the USA has not. And THAT will be the sword he falls on. As I said elsewhere, even Ted Cruz is now worried.
Trump will fall on the sword regardless, because any attempt at transitioning to trade balance for the US will be immensely disruptive, successful or not.
"Falling on the sword" implies recognising your own error and then choosing to do the right and honourable thing. There is zero evidence of President Chamberlain being capable of either, let alone bothQuoteIf democrats grab congress the US can have the executive force trade balance and congress run an expansionist policy relatively soon though.
Um. Could you reword that to make it clearer? -
There are only reasonable people and extremists. I am just as skeptical of utopians as I am of authoritarians.
Both insist they know how you should behave.
If you think it was calm in the US after WW2, then clearly you don't remember the 1960s!
I lived thru the 60s and remember well the "race" riots of 1967, Chicago and the fake hard hat protest organized by Johnson.
I was referring to the calm (which is relative) during 1946 to 1962 when the young adult population had enough of violence from WWII.
Damn, just realized I need to put a warning on my website that I will no longer accept repairs from outside the USA because I ain't paying the import fees. -
US president can unilaterally impose tariffs, but congress determines the budget.If democrats grab congress the US can have the executive force trade balance and congress run an expansionist policy relatively soon though.
Um. Could you reword that to make it clearer?
A democratic majority congress could make sure that the economic disruption does not cause mass unemployment and keep the ability for the masses to pay for necessities (housing, food, energy, healthcare). Congress can make sure the "masses got a piece of the pie" while Trump forces trade balance.