US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman

In a twilight realm where whispers bloom,
Three croaking birds foretold of doom:
Ostfriese croaked in stately tone,
A herald of fate from lands unknown.
Dargo, with a raucous, bold decree,
Preached political woes by the old oak tree;
His words, like caws on autumn's breeze,
Warned of change with sardonic ease.
And then there was Skybird, high and free,
A somber soul of prophecy;
Each note a warning, stark and clear,
Of revolution drawing near.
Together they sang in eerie tune,
Under a political, pending monsoon;
A trio of croaks in the night so grim,
Foretelling a doom both dark and dim.
Yet in their croaks a playful jest,
A cosmic irony in fate’s behest—
For in their doom, so bold and brash,
Lurked hints of change amidst the clash.

Don't worry, we'll have a heartfelt "told you so" for you as well.

[Skybird]

I dream of a future when sonars ping in rhymes and torpedoes go Booom! in swing and rythm!

@Otto:


But just for the record: Dargo and me more often disagree than agree on things.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I for one hope that Trump doesn't pussy out from the China tariffs.

Aaand Trump backs down.


Most electronics and other related items have been removed from reciprocal tariffs list:
https://content.govdelivery.com/bull...DHSCBP-3db9e55


What a pussy.


EDIT: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20xn626y81o

US President Donald Trump's administration has exempted smartphones and computers from reciprocal tariffs, including the 125% levies imposed on Chinese imports.

US Customs and Border Patrol published a notice late on Friday explaining the goods would be excluded from Trump's 10% global tariff on most countries and the much larger Chinese import tax.

The move comes after concerns from US tech companies that the price of gadgets could skyrocket, as many of them are made in China.

The exemptions also include other electronic devices and components, including semiconductors, solar cells and memory cards.

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman

In a twilight realm where whispers bloom,
Three croaking birds foretold of doom:
Ostfriese croaked in stately tone,
A herald of fate from lands unknown.
Dargo, with a raucous, bold decree,
Preached political woes by the old oak tree;
His words, like caws on autumn's breeze,
Warned of change with sardonic ease.
And then there was Skybird, high and free,
A somber soul of prophecy;
Each note a warning, stark and clear,
Of revolution drawing near.
Together they sang in eerie tune,
Under a political, pending monsoon;
A trio of croaks in the night so grim,
Foretelling a doom both dark and dim.
Yet in their croaks a playful jest,
A cosmic irony in fate’s behest—
For in their doom, so bold and brash,
Lurked hints of change amidst the clash.

Ty for the wonderfull poem

[Raf1394]

It seems Trump excludes smartphones, memory cards and computer chips from tariffs.

US customs got these procedures.

[Dargo]

More than 200 companies around the world manufacture and supply Apple iPhone manufacturers with the components they need to produce the phones. These component manufacturers create the memory chips, glass screen interfaces, casings, cameras, and everything in between. And the countries where these manufacturers are located are also widely varied. Components come from companies in South Korea, China, Taiwan, Germany, Japan, India, and many other countries, including the United States. Apple and all other companies have figured this out so they can produce a product in a max efficiency. But no here comes an Orange bully who thinks he knows better than hundreds of companies, bankers, trade experts, economist etc.

[Catfish]

Some 6 years ago a change of paradigm took place, along with comparative advantage it seems Trump has either not heard of what that means ot he intentionally ignores it.
It only makes sense when you bet on falling stocks. And of course you can make lots of money when you can make them fall yourself.

[Dargo]

‘This time I will do what I want with the tariffs,’ Trump vowed on Tuesday night in Washington at a dinner with party colleagues. ‘The tariffs are permanent.’ Hours later, he changed his mind. Again. In February, Trump also announced levies, against Canada and Mexico, only to postpone them in the nick of time, then announce them again, then cancel them in March. Trump keeps daring to say A, but at B he swoons.

Even the end goal keeps changing. After all, why this trade war? At times, Trump and his cabinet members respond with grandiose visions: rearranging the global economy, revitalising US industry, a much-needed repayment of the national debt. Temporary pain would be necessary. And the levies? A long-term strategy. At other times, Trump and his allies talk about the trade war as a short-term tactic. Levies would be a pressure tool to get other countries to ‘better deals’. A route to more free trade, in other words. On Tuesday, a day before the U-turn, minister Bessent (‘negotiating tactics!’) and adviser Navarro (‘long-term!’) proclaimed those opposing goals at the same time on different TV channels. It cannot be both. The world sees that too. That looks less like strategy, more like doubt. And doubt is disastrous for the market.

Since the postponement, the narrative has revolved around the deals again. ‘We are overwhelmed by the response to come to Washington and negotiate with President Trump,’ said Bessent. Over 70 countries are said to have applied. ‘Everybody is kissing my ass,’ Trump said. ‘Please sir, give me a deal!’ But in reality, Trump has weakened his position. Other world leaders saw this week that the US president does appear sensitive to financial pain. Will he ever actually carry out his threats? ‘It has not become easier for the US to negotiate,’ Moritz Schularick, head of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, concluded in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. ‘Next time, people will only be less likely to believe Trump, wondering when he will yield again.’ Trump's 90-day delay also gives him very little time. Although the president swore this week that he could close ‘any deal within a day’, not one new deal has been finalised as yet.

[Skybird]

Three diagrams. If they make an economist not freeze, check his heartbeat. Its probably already gone.

The development of China's hold of US bonds, and its gold.



The development of the gold price in recent years.





All Central banks' buyings of gold in recent years.





All these three graohs tigetehr ring RED ALERT. Global debts by the end of tbis year are expected to be beyond 100 trillion dollar. The US has tripled its debt since the year 2000, an d now must poay more in interests than it spends for its defense budget: over one trillion in interests.



You really must not be Kassandra to imagine where this is necessarily leading to.

[Buddahaid]

And then there's a sixty-day expiration time limit unless Congress votes to make them permanent. That is if the goalposts don't keep moving. Trump's a ponce wanker.

[Dargo]

In their determination, the geriatric Trump and his advisers are ignoring the current economic development of intensive global cooperation in production and logistics chains to produce the best quality product for the consumer at the lowest price. Here, the labour cost factor in particular plays an important role in the question of which countries are best to source components from in order to make the final product efficiently and cheaply. Producing a final product is mostly assembling numerous parts from different suppliers into a final product. Workers' wages are high in the US compared to Asian producing countries. The Trump administration is pushing high with the announced import tariffs on foreign products. Indeed, there is little chance that those import tariffs will move mass producers to produce in the US. For labour-intensive production, wages are too high and innovation cannot completely neutralise that problem either.

So the wait is for fierce protests from US consumers against the rising consumer prices of foreign products that US consumers have also become addicted to, such as the American-origin iPhone. There are also plenty of unique products from abroad in the commodities and semifinished goods industry that US consumers or industries cannot live without. The world's pre-MAGA economic order cannot be bent to the will of one world leader just because it wants to. Economic laws have no boundaries in the world that must be respected because one president wants it that way. The US has a strong economic dominance, but it is certainly not an untouchable monopolist.

[Skybird]

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

RR

I already posted that a few days ago but it's still worth viewing.

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[FOCUS] The US's so-called "tariff hammer" is based on a comprehensive report on global trade restrictions. Anyone reading this "bible" will come across examples of international trade barriers that cast Trump's demands in a different light.

Anyone who wants to defeat their opponent must know how they think. This applies to bloody wars, such as the one in Ukraine against Russia, as well as to trade wars, such as the one US President Donald Trump has now instigated with his so-called "tariff hammer."

It is therefore worthwhile to delve deeper and explore the president's motivations. Anyone who does so, however, must be prepared for their own worldview to be questioned. In this case, the EU will certainly also have to face uncomfortable questions.

Trump did not announce his tariff plan out of the blue. For a quarter of a century, his biography, from businessman to politician, has been permeated by the idea that the US is paying far too high a price for its prosperity and progress because other countries have erected trade barriers that do not exist in the US.

The country's high level of debt originates here. Trump, then a businessman and real estate tycoon, said on the Oprah Winfrey show in 1988: The Japanese were coming into the US market and flooding it with their products.

Conversely, anyone who went to Japan and wanted to sell something could forget it. "The Art of the Deal," Trump's view of the economy and trade, was published as a book in 1987 and describes his attitude towards it, which he still holds today. So, Trump can't be accused of being a "turncoat," like many in politics.

With his re-election as president, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the official US Chamber of Commerce, together with US embassies around the world, began working on a report listing the hurdles the US considers to be obstacles to its own trade.

The result is the "2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers." It explicitly addresses not just tariffs, but everything that, from the US perspective, restricts free trade. Anyone who now accuses Trump of destroying global trade needs to take note of this 380-page report.

The intention of this new standard work, the bible of US dealers, so to speak, is the opposite of destroying trade: From the American perspective, it is more about liberation. The report focuses particularly on two regions: 48 pages are devoted to China. And no less than 34 pages to the EU.

The EU chapter begins quite sympathetically. "The United States and the EU member states maintain the most extensive economic relationship in the world. Trade and investment flows between the United States and the EU are a key pillar of prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic and create significant economic opportunities," the US trade experts note.

But then comes the qualification: "Goods and services from the United States, however, face persistent barriers to accessing certain sectors of the EU market."

What follows is truly unflattering for the Europeans. The report goes into great detail and doesn't limit itself to complaints about high EU tariffs of up to 26 percent on fish and seafood or 22 percent on US trucks traveling on European roads.

Trump's troops are illuminating the EU's shoals and citing the banana example: After decades of disputes, the Americans reached an agreement with the EU in 2010 to achieve a uniform EU banana import regime, but this did not prevent Italian customs authorities from collecting tariffs on bananas from the US retroactively from 2004.

The Italian Supreme Court finally ruled in 2017 that this was illegal, which the Italian customs authorities happily ignored. They are still suing.

However, the Americans aren't so much upset about the Italian case, but rather about the fact that "despite the existence of customs regulations that apply to all member states, the EU does not have its laws run through a single customs administration." "Rather, there are separate authorities in each member state responsible for administering EU customs law."

The consequences are chaos and costs: "US exports suffer from the uneven and inconsistent application" of EU requirements. Member states use different data.

The EU-promised standardization of customs data systems was postponed from the end of 2020 to the end of 2025. The next reform is scheduled for 2028, and US companies literally only understand "banana."

Another example that is driving Americans to despair is the EU wine regulation. US wine merchants exported $170 million worth of wine to the EU in 2024.

The problem: It could be much more, but the EU prohibits the use of traditional designations such as "Tawny" or "Ruby" for port wines and "Chateau" for other wines originating in the US. For many US producers, however, these very terms are part of their brand names. This makes the EU market largely off-limits for them.

"The EU has taken no discernible steps to address the United States' concerns and has consistently refused to provide a timeline for reviewing applications for use of terms submitted by US industry," the trade report states. US winemakers are now annoyed.

Following this example, there's a key paragraph in the report that demonstrates just how far apart the US and the EU are: The United States is concerned about a number of measures the EU maintains, ostensibly for the purpose of food safety and the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, it states.

"Specifically, the United States is concerned that these measures could unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering safety objectives, as they appear to be applied beyond what is necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, and are not based on scientific knowledge or are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence."

The accusation is thus: The EU is using health mumbo jumbo to defend itself against imports that could make life difficult for its own manufacturers.

The 380 pages are peppered with examples of such things, which, from the US perspective, "distort or undermine fair competition." The report gains additional credibility because the authors themselves admit that in some cases they included "stakeholder valuations" in the data to estimate the financial impact of trade barriers.

"The methods used to calculate these valuations are sometimes uncertain." The government is aware of this and therefore does not rigidly adhere to such calculations. There is a hint of a willingness to negotiate here – another trait that has been evident throughout Trump's career.
-------------------


However, the US sometimes complains about tax systems in other countries that tax not only American products, but also those produced domestically. Such taxes may not be applied in the US, but they are in effect in many other countries, and the US cannot claim that other countries should do what the Americans do at home. That is one point of criticism of Trump's argument.

I attach importance to another, because the issue has interested me for years: food safety. American supermarkets are allowed to sell many toxic food additives in their food that have been proven to have toxic and carcinogenic effects—not just theoretically—and whose use is often only permitted in the USA due to the industry's strong lobbying efforts, but which are banned in many places abroad, and often everywhere. And rightly so. The USA really shouldn't want to sell this nasty crap to other countries; they should also abolish it at home (which is part of Kennedy's political goals; he's so right about these issues). The list of critical industry-added toxins in food is several hundred entries long, and it's only too often that it targets children's "food" in particular (but not exclusively). And no, I'm not talking about the most infamous "chlorine chickens."

From a health perspective, the trade in glucose syrup, HFCS, soy, and similar chemicals is fundamentally worthy of criticism. Farmers should be encouraged to switch to livestock farming, with cattle raised on pasture, and free-living chickens for egg production. The agricultural lobby, whose operators own the lion's share of large-scale monocultures, will of course vehemently oppose this - thery are driving forc ebehind the internationbal propagation of vegetariansim and veganism and fake meat: plant-based copy-crap that should replace real meat. These fields and acres should be converted to pastureland. Done correctly and not exaggerated out of profit greed, this is even more sustainable than anything else a farmer can do with his fields. Lets not forget: agriculture's invention 12 thosuand years ago has ruined human food and hralth and led to a huge delcine of the alotter, a massive physicla degeneration. Its not healthy what we eat- not at all! Its just that it can be produced cheaply and in large quantities.

On the wine names and simullair problems: why not just rebranding, relabelling export shares of a production to comply with regional custimer laws? In the end Eurooean wine name sindeed refer to regional names, and I dont see why totally difefrent wines form somewhere else shoud, then be marketed under these names. When I buy an original Parmigiano form Italy, i spend the money on some specific taste quality that indeed is the reaosn why I pay a bot more, if then I get some cheese from soemnmewhrer else that sues the same name and in the end tastes a little bit different (even if tasting good taken for itself), I feel betrayed. Thats not what I was willing to spend a little more for.

When i buy a Bordeaux, then I want to get (and taste) a Bordeaux, not some Californian wine abusing the name. This is not to say that californian wine cannot be good, in fact they can be excellent. But they are no Bordeaux, or Port, or whatever - they are Californian. As such they should be named and sold.

What the US sometimes demand here, is the right to label fraud. Granted, some Asian producers practice this excessively, but that does not make it any less wrong.

Damn, Are you writing a book ? It's lengthy for a rant. For,eggs,chicken, beef and wine. How about throwing some women in there to.That's what i'm most interested in.Or are they considered high dollar consumables that are in short supply. Here in America ,Female's are running wild,with man hate.The only thing that will save mankind is the Quran. And if you worried about tariffs? Apparently your government has been spending your money on welfare. And lying to you about everything. But now the new American President is going to wake you up. And every day we are watching your politicians scrambling in fear. Oh my, Greta Thunberg a 12 year-old shifted the world into. Our present day calamity. But she didn't know the Americans and NATO along with the Europeans wanted a war with Russia. A war of dominice a war of genocide and you know, genocide doesn't include those who are caught in the mists of battle. And where is Greta Turnberg.?????

[Skybird]

The author Rainer Zitelmann is a historian and sociologist.


[FOCUS] What's really behind Trump's punitive tariffs? These are two beliefs that have caused much harm throughout history.

Absurd economic theories have often caused immense damage. Just think of Marxism and other forms of anti-capitalism, which have plunged many countries into poverty. But rarely have zero-sum economic thinking and scapegoating caused as much harm in just a few days as they have since Trump's Liberation Day.

Because zero-sum and scapegoating are the basis for Trump's tariff policy. Zero-sum thinking refers to the false assumption that in economics, one side's advantage must always be another's disadvantage. Anti-capitalists are deeply convinced of this, and Trump is convinced of it too. He can't imagine both sides winning from free trade; for him, one side's gain is another's loss.

Linked to zero-sum thinking is scapegoating. Other countries are blamed for problems in one's own country. This is also a popular interpretation, for example among the rulers of Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or Iran: According to the rulers, Western sanctions are responsible for their countries' problems. Many African countries, in turn, blame historical colonialism for their current poverty.

Trump has repeatedly changed his political beliefs throughout his life. In the early 1990s, for example, he advocated reversing Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and raising the top tax rate to 50 to 60 percent. And as a candidate of the so-called "Reform Party," he advocated numerous positions otherwise supported by the political left, such as a one-time tax on the rich and universal health insurance paid for by employers.

One of the few constants in Trump's beliefs, however, is that other countries are responsible for the United States' problems. As early as the 1980s, he denounced the US trade deficit with Japan.

He accused Japan of unfair trade practices and flooding the country with cars. He later adopted the position of his trade advisor, economist Peter Navarro, who, in his book "Death by China," blamed the Chinese for the United States' problems. However, after the disaster caused by the tariffs he recommended, Navarro had to step back a few days ago.

Whether a country looks to itself or others for the cause of its economic problems can be crucial to its economic success. An example of two Asian countries I have studied intensively: Vietnam and Nepal. In the 1980s, Vietnam was the poorest country in the world, poorer than all African countries.

If the Vietnamese had followed the scapegoat mentality, they could have blamed the Americans, or even the French, Japanese, or Chinese, who waged war on their country. But they didn't. They understood that their centrally planned economy was to blame. Therefore, in the late 1980s, they introduced private property and opened up the country. Today, few economies in the world are as open as Vietnam's. The result: The number of poor people fell from 80 percent to three percent today.

Counterexample: Nepal: With an average annual income of €290, Nepal is the second poorest country in Asia after Afghanistan and one of the ten poorest countries in the world. Trump should love the country, because hardly anywhere else has so many and such high tariffs; for cars, they sometimes exceed 300 percent. A BMW X5 costs the equivalent of around €400,000 in Nepal due to the high import duties and taxes.

There are long lists of everything that cannot be imported in order to protect Nepal's economy. The country's leaders believe in Maoism and adhere to the zero-sum belief and scapegoat mentality. Other countries are supposedly to blame for the problems.

American economist Mark Skousen has dismissed Trump's claim that his country is being exploited by others as absurd. In response to criticism that the US has "suffered from abuses" of unfair trade over the years, he points out that eight of the ten richest companies in the world are American. Trump just likes to play Monopoly.

Trump has repeatedly complained that there are many more German cars in the US than American ones in Germany: "If you walk down Fifth Avenue, everyone has a Mercedes-Benz in front of their house. How many Chevrolets do you see in Germany? Not many, maybe none at all, you don't see them."

The idea that perhaps many customers simply consider the Mercedes to be a better car than the Chevrolet doesn't occur to Trump; for him, it's simply "unfair" that Americans buy more German cars than the other way around. Trump has repeatedly said that the word "tariffs" is the most beautiful word in the dictionary for him, which is as absurd as someone declaring that "taxes" is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.

One can only hope that the logic of the markets and economic realities will continue to force Trump to act against his convictions, little by little—as has already happened in recent weeks when he had to allow more and more exceptions to the measures announced on "Liberation Day."