The trade and economy mega-thread (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Is there a trade deal with China? Is it really a deal or just a pull-back to status quo ante? Is Trump advancing US interests in this well-executed trade battle plan or was this poorly conceived from the start . . . and harmful?

I think the jury's still out, but I haven't seen that the Chinese are offering much in compromise - and it's not even clear if there's going to be an agreement. But it's clear they are working on something and I'm sure Trump will sell it as the greatest trade deal ever. The proof will be in the details.

 

[efil4]

He is unhinged.

he in rare form today for some reason. Losing it.

 

[efil4]

speculation THIS is what set him off this morning

 

[Optimus Prime]

FULL TEXT:

Leavitt: “The president is responding to the fact that Canada has been ripping off the United States of America and hard-working Americans for decades." Leavitts out there waving hand-held diagrams like it’s a grade-school show-and-tell, and I’m supposed to buy this?

Oh, please. Canada’s "ripping us off"?

What, with their weaponized maple syrup and hordes of polite moose crossing the border to steal our jobs?

Decades of this, she says—like Trudeau’s been running a long con since the ‘80s, twirling his mustache while siphoning off our dignity one "eh" at a time.

And those diagrams? I bet it’s just a Sharpie-scribbled hockey stick labeled "Canadian Greed" next to a sad bald eagle crying over a pile of loonies.

Real hard-hitting stuff, Karoline.

"Hard-working Americans" are the victims here, naturally—because nothing screams oppression like buying cheap Canadian lumber to build your McMansion or guzzling their oil to fuel your F-150. Meanwhile, she’s acting like the U.S. hasn’t been happily slurping up Alberta crude or shipping iPhones north for years. Trade’s a two-way street, but nah, let’s pretend Canada’s been pickpocketing us since Nixon was in office.

The tariffs she’s hyping? Probably just Trump’s latest tantrum because Trudeau didn’t compliment his hair at the last G7.

It’s theater, pure and simple—Leavitt’s playing the loyal hype woman, diagrams and all, like she’s auditioning for a Fox News prop comedy special. Next she’ll say the northern lights are a Canadian plot to distract us from their poutine smuggling ring. Give me a break. What’s she got up her sleeve next—blaming hockey for inflation?

 

[coldseat]

speculation THIS is what set him off this morning

What I got from that is that CEO's are extreme cowards and opportunist. Willing to crash the American economy and let the little people suffer so that they can get their tax breaks and regulation cuts. They know they'll be able to recover even if the little people are wiped out. Plus they get the added bonus of cheap labor with all the job loss.

We need to kneecap the billionaires and CEO's if we're going to survive. They're willing to do anything to obtain their oligarchy.

 

[Optimus Prime]

What I got from that is that CEO's are extreme cowards and opportunist. Willing to crash the American economy and let the little people suffer so that they can get their tax breaks and regulation cuts. They know they'll be able to recover even if the little people are wiped out. Plus they get the added bonus of cheap labor with all the job loss.

We need to kneecap the billionaires and CEO's if we're going to survive. They're willing to do anything to obtain their oligarchy.

That's what can happen when profit is the only motive

And not just crashing the current economy they want to add more burden and expenses on people by privatizing government functions

Want a normal day weather report? You'll have to pay for it

Want the update on the level 4 hurricane headed your way? Or outbreak alerts? Pay a premium. What's $19.99 for potentially live saving information?

What if EZ Pass was mandatory in every vehicle and every road was a toll road?

 

[Neworleansfan]

SPY just hits correction territory. Trillions got wiped out from retirement accounts in less than a month.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well, the pay raise I'm expecting next month will be meaningless in this economy.

 

[Lapaz]

No one is discussing the national security implication of the tariffs, and inevitable reduction in trade. One of the commonly cited tenets of the last few decades was that if we intertwine our economies, it makes it less likely for a country to go to war with you. The less we trade with Europe, allies, and even foes like China, the less safe we're going to be. Theoretically NATO would side with us, but I think that is becoming more questionable every day. What binds us to NATO is trade and values. Trump doesn't care about either of those, and he is constantly doing things to further damage our relationships with our allies, so NATO is in danger of failing. If it does, and a new world order replaces it without democratic countries vowing to defend each other, then nuclear proliferation will happen and we will be far less safe. China will be a lot more bold if they no longer have to fear NATO backing the U.S. Taiwan will fall very quickly thereafter. The Pacific theatre will be destabilized. Russia will probably move on some European countries. We could have WW III, but this time it'll be Russia and China, rather than Germany and Japan, and this time we may get attacked sooner. This broad tariff war is very short-sighted, unless your goal is to make America weak and vulnerable.

 

[efil4]

No one is discussing the national security implication of the tariffs, and inevitable reduction in trade. One of the commonly cited tenets of the last few decades was that if we intertwine our economies, it makes it less likely for a country to go to war with you. The less we trade with Europe, allies, and even foes like China, the less safe we're going to be. Theoretically NATO would side with us, but I think that is becoming more questionable every day. What binds us to NATO is trade and values. Trump doesn't care about either of those, and he is constantly doing things to further damage our relationships with our allies, so NATO is in danger of failing. If it does, and a new world order replaces it without democratic countries vowing to defend each other, then nuclear proliferation will happen and we will be far less safe. China will be a lot more bold if they no longer have to fear NATO backing the U.S. Taiwan will fall very quickly thereafter. The Pacific theatre will be destabilized. Russia will probably move on some European countries. We could have WW III, but this time it'll be Russia and China, rather than Germany and Japan, and this time we may get attacked sooner. This broad tariff war is very short-sighted, unless your goal is to make America weak and vulnerable.

LOL i posted a week ago- this is the Man in the High Castle- just replace Germany/Japan ( Swaztika/Rising Sun ) with Russia/China ( hammer/sicle/red star)

 

[Dragon]

No one is discussing the national security implication of the tariffs, and inevitable reduction in trade. One of the commonly cited tenets of the last few decades was that if we intertwine our economies, it makes it less likely for a country to go to war with you. The less we trade with Europe, allies, and even foes like China, the less safe we're going to be. Theoretically NATO would side with us, but I think that is becoming more questionable every day. What binds us to NATO is trade and values. Trump doesn't care about either of those, and he is constantly doing things to further damage our relationships with our allies, so NATO is in danger of failing. If it does, and a new world order replaces it without democratic countries vowing to defend each other, then nuclear proliferation will happen and we will be far less safe. China will be a lot more bold if they no longer have to fear NATO backing the U.S. Taiwan will fall very quickly thereafter. The Pacific theatre will be destabilized. Russia will probably move on some European countries. We could have WW III, but this time it'll be Russia and China, rather than Germany and Japan, and this time we may get attacked sooner. This broad tariff war is very short-sighted, unless your goal is to make America weak and vulnerable.

Europe, Canada, and Oceania are already holding national security meetings without the U.S., unwilling to "wait and see" what happens. Instead, they are taking proactive steps to prepare.

In some ways, the U.S. is fortunate—it has never had an aggressive fascist neighbor. Europe, however, has far too much experience with such threats to ignore the current developments. History has taught us painful lessons about the dangers of appeasement, and we remember all too well the false promises of "peace in our time."

We desire peace, but we also understand that when fascism emerges next door, peace can only be secured through strength.

 

[Lapaz]

LOL i posted a week ago- this is the Man in the High Castle- just replace Germany/Japan ( Swaztika/Rising Sun ) with Russia/China ( hammer/sicle/red star)

Europe, Canada, and Oceania are already holding national security meetings without the U.S., unwilling to "wait and see" what happens. Instead, they are taking proactive steps to prepare.

In some ways, the U.S. is fortunate—it has never had an aggressive fascist neighbor. Europe, however, has far too much experience with such threats to ignore the current developments. History has taught us painful lessons about the dangers of appeasement, and we remember all too well the false promises of "peace in our time."

We desire peace, but we also understand that when fascism emerges next door, peace can only be secured through strength.

efil, you may have posted about it, but all I hear in the media about Tariffs is about economic impacts. I only hear about what consumers, and average Americans will feel. I only hear discussions about how it will spur inflation, decrease the growth, impacts on the market, job losses, but I don't recall anyone mentioning how it will hurt national security. When I hear national security, it is in the context of how self reliance will make us more secure, but I think it is the opposite. The media is failing to raise the longer term security implications. The biggest deterrent has been our alliances, which are heavily impacted by our trade. It's not just goods, but services and ideas that we trade. We could theoretically be more secure by not relying on allies, but we lose more than we gain, because fighting alone is far less effective than fighting together. That case is being buried by the paranoid notion that any reliance makes us weaker. All freedom loving countries will lose if we become insular nations. China's insular nature will no longer be a weakness as we emulate them.

 

[efil4]

efil, you may have posted about it, but all I hear in the media about Tariffs is about economic impacts. I only hear about what consumers, and average Americans will feel. I only hear discussions about how it will spur inflation, decrease the growth, impacts on the market, job losses, but I don't recall anyone mentioning how it will hurt national security. When I hear national security, it is in the context of how self reliance will make us more secure, but I think it is the opposite. The media is failing to raise the longer term security implications. The biggest deterrent has been our alliances, which are heavily impacted by our trade. It's not just goods, but services and ideas that we trade. We could theoretically be more secure by not relying on allies, but we lose more than we gain, because fighting alone is far less effective than fighting together. That case is being buried by the paranoid notion that any reliance makes us weaker. All freedom loving countries will lose if we become insular nations. China's insular nature will no longer be a weakness as we emulate them.

because the average voter knows little to nothing about how National Security is tied to our economics. Shoot, they hardly understand economics or care to. ( or education and NS etc )

The average voter doesnt have the attention span needed to 1) explain the correlation and 2) digest/understand correlation.

So it gets boiled down to "it will affect your own finances" because THAT they not only listen to, they understand.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Lapaz]

because the average voter knows little to nothing about how National Security is tied to our economics. Shoot, they hardly understand economics or care to. ( or education and NS etc )

The average voter doesnt have the attention span needed to 1) explain the correlation and 2) digest/understand correlation.

So it gets boiled down to "it will affect your own finances" because THAT they not only listen to, they understand.

The problem is that the average voter thinks the economy will rebound, and it probably will rebound to some extent, so national security shouldn't be overlooked. Nuclear proliferation and loss of allies should be much more front and center. If the media only focuses on economics, they'll never understand the bigger implications of becoming protectionists and insular.

 

[efil4]

The problem is that the average voter thinks the economy will rebound, and it probably will rebound to some extent, so national security shouldn't be overlooked. Nuclear proliferation and loss of allies should be much more front and center. If the media only focuses on economics, they'll never understand the bigger implications of becoming protectionists and insular.

the economy will take quite some time to bounce back.

I dont disagree about enjoining the conversation to include National Security, i just think it will be a waste of time because folks dont want to hear it.

His core supporters dont care what happens to the US. They only care if they own the libs. No matter what it takes to do so. And hope, by virtue of alignment, they wont be left out in the cold when the new order takes shape.

They have no idea how far out they will be left.

 

[Booker]

because the average voter knows little to nothing about how National Security is tied to our economics. Shoot, they hardly understand economics or care to. ( or education and NS etc )

The average voter doesnt have the attention span needed to 1) explain the correlation and 2) digest/understand correlation.

So it gets boiled down to "it will affect your own finances" because THAT they not only listen to, they understand.

I think a lot of people take a lot for granted how our security and economy have all been intertwined with being perceived as the global "good guy."

 

[Dragon]

I think a lot of people take a lot for granted how our security and economy have all been intertwined with being perceived as the global "good guy."

This reality has become even more important as the world becomes more interconnected. People are increasingly aware of the power of their wallets, using boycotts against companies—and, to some extent, goods produced in certain countries—as a way to express both support and opposition to political actions.


Adding to this, social media has amplified the reach and speed of these movements, making the power of the purse more influential than ever before. What once took years to build momentum can now spread globally in a matter of hours. Compared to just a decade ago, economic pressure has become a far more effective tool for shaping corporate and national behavior.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld defended President Donald Trump’s escalating trade waron Wednesday by insisting “a tariff is not a tax if you don’t buy the goods” before pointing to the right’s favorite bogeyman as the real culprit behind the nation’s stubborn inflation.

“I blame DEI,” the network’s resident “comedian” declared.

With economists growing increasingly worried about a recession and the stock market continuing to tank, the Trump administration and its allies in right-wing media have attempted to give a positive spin to the economic chaos unleashed by the president’s trade policies and DOGE cuts…….

Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld comes up with novel reason for inflation: ‘I blame DEI!’

‘A tariff is not a tax if you don't buy the goods,” Greg Gutfeld also asserted this week

www.independent.co.uk